|
Post by politicidal on Sept 14, 2020 14:51:51 GMT
And why they didn't follow up the 2008 film.
TEXT:
In an interview with Norton has referred to The Incredible Hulk as "Chapter 1" in a multiple-part story, which is key to understanding The Incredible Hulk 2, because it means the film was probably going to build on everything that had been set up in the first movie. Secondary characters like Betty Ross and her father "Thunderbolt" Ross would presumably return, and Dr. Samuel Sterns, aka the Leader, would most likely have been the main villain. Tim Blake Nelson confirmed he had signed a multi-picture contract with Marvel for precisely that purpose. Ty Burrell was also expecting to return as Doc Samson.
The relationship between Norton and Marvel Studios, unfortunately, soured during editing of The Incredible Hulk because it became clear the actor and studio had very different visions. A lot of character development was cut, and director Louis Leterrier believed there could be up to 70 minutes of deleted scenes. Norton wasn't happy, and a meeting with Marvel execs turned into a shouting match.
Making matters worse, details leaked to the press. It didn't take long for speculation to begin circling that Norton wouldn't be reprising the role of Bruce Banner; members of the cast were literally fielding questions about this during The Incredible Hulk's press tour. In 2010, shortly before filming began on The Avengers, Marvel confirmed they had parted ways with Norton. Even that wasn't particularly amicable, with their statement containing what seemed to be a parting shot aimed directly at him, saying their decision was"rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members."
Meanwhile, in 2009, Marvel Studios was purchased by Disney, virtually ending any chance of another solo Hulk film in the MCU as the distribution rights to Hulk films sit with Universal. Back in 2008, that was a good thing for Marvel, because they lacked any distribution network of their own. When they were acquired by Disney, though, they gained the House of Mouse's own distribution channels. And there was no way Disney would pay to produce The Incredible Hulk 2, but allow Universal to profit from the distribution. Even Edward Norton's replacement, Mark Ruffalo, has conceded there is now no chance of another Hulk solo movie.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 14, 2020 15:04:11 GMT
I'd watch a longer cut of the movie--Norton was ok but Bixby was the best Banner (just as Hammond was the best Peter Parker). Why was casting so effortless back in the 70s and such a mess by the 2000s....
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 14, 2020 15:05:02 GMT
It is what it is. The MCU quickly seemed to funnel creatives towards the Infinity Saga's primary arc. Look at Ant-Man, Edgar Wright might've delivered a great film - except misaligned with the collective Avengers lane.
What's strange now is it's likely decades again until these characters can see the big screen from unique povs. You can't drop a new & different Hulk film in 2024 whilst this next phase of MCU is still travelling.
All things considered, I much prefer the cards we were dealt. This isn't DC where everything is like herding cats.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 14, 2020 15:58:40 GMT
TIH has always felt like an oddball in the MCU. I guess it’s fair to say that part of that is due to Edward Norton.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 14, 2020 16:01:55 GMT
It's unfortunate. There's a lot to do with the Hulk that was missed out on and I wish there'd been more solo films for him. We could have had Red Hulk, She-Hulk and Doc Samson in the Avengers by the time Infinity War came out.
Knowing Marvel and the way Iron Man 2 turned out they probably wanted any new Hulk movies to be Avengers commercials.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 14, 2020 17:26:53 GMT
It's unfortunate. There's a lot to do with the Hulk that was missed out on and I wish there'd been more solo films for him. We could have had Red Hulk, She-Hulk and Doc Samson in the Avengers by the time Infinity War came out. Knowing Marvel and the way Iron Man 2 turned out they probably wanted any new Hulk movies to be Avengers commercials. Iron Man 2 had 1 scene about the Avengers.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 14, 2020 18:56:31 GMT
It's unfortunate. There's a lot to do with the Hulk that was missed out on and I wish there'd been more solo films for him. We could have had Red Hulk, She-Hulk and Doc Samson in the Avengers by the time Infinity War came out. Knowing Marvel and the way Iron Man 2 turned out they probably wanted any new Hulk movies to be Avengers commercials. Iron Man 2 had 1 scene about the Avengers. Black Widow and Nick Fury were shoehorned in there for Avengers purposes.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 14, 2020 19:52:06 GMT
Iron Man 2 had 1 scene about the Avengers. Black Widow and Nick Fury were shoehorned in there for Avengers purposes. Or they were continuing from the story that was in the first movie. You know Coulson was all through the first movie planting seeds for SHIELD being in Stark's life. The problem with your thinking is because Fury and Widow are named characters you know from the comics. If they were random SHIELD agents you wouldn't be saying they were shoehorned in.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 14, 2020 20:50:09 GMT
Black Widow and Nick Fury were shoehorned in there for Avengers purposes. Or they were continuing from the story that was in the first movie. You know Coulson was all through the first movie planting seeds for SHIELD being in Stark's life. The problem with your thinking is because Fury and Widow are named characters you know from the comics. If they were random SHIELD agents you wouldn't be saying they were shoehorned in. Coulson was also in Thor which was also Avengers commercial related. And if they were random SHIELD agents yes I would still be saying they were shoehorned in there. They add nothing to the story of Iron Man 2.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 15, 2020 2:03:58 GMT
Or they were continuing from the story that was in the first movie. You know Coulson was all through the first movie planting seeds for SHIELD being in Stark's life. The problem with your thinking is because Fury and Widow are named characters you know from the comics. If they were random SHIELD agents you wouldn't be saying they were shoehorned in. Coulson was also in Thor which was also Avengers commercial related. And if they were random SHIELD agents yes I would still be saying they were shoehorned in there. They add nothing to the story of Iron Man 2. What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Sept 15, 2020 16:01:24 GMT
Coulson was also in Thor which was also Avengers commercial related. And if they were random SHIELD agents yes I would still be saying they were shoehorned in there. They add nothing to the story of Iron Man 2. What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
I remember when Iron Man 3 was released. message boards were filled with "where are the other Avengers ? this is bullshit." They when the Captain America: Civil War trailer hit the internet, we were flooded with "there's too many characters, this is bullshit." It was almost as if people were moving the goal post so Marvel would fail no matter what they do.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 15, 2020 16:52:37 GMT
What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
I remember when Iron Man 3 was released. message boards were filled with "where are the other Avengers ? this is bullshit." They when the Captain America: Civil War trailer hit the internet, we were flooded with "there's too many characters, this is bullshit." It was almost as if people were moving the goal post so Marvel would fail no matter what they do. Yeah, they started calling Civil War Avengers 2.5.
And yes they wanted the MCU to fail because it got too big. Started wanting them to kill off characters like the MCU was only one POV that was hard to pay attention to.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 15, 2020 17:30:32 GMT
Coulson was also in Thor which was also Avengers commercial related. And if they were random SHIELD agents yes I would still be saying they were shoehorned in there. They add nothing to the story of Iron Man 2. What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
No they didn't. Again, they were there for Avengers commercial things, it had nothing to do with world building. Tony could have got along just fine without them and there would have been more room for the story. The individual films should have had the heroes having their own adventures with no interference. This makes it better when they team up for an Avengers movie. The only time it ever worked was in Winter Solider where Cap fit seamlessly into SHIELD. You mean the comics that are routinely butchered to fit the movies and TV shows? No I haven't read those in a long time.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 15, 2020 17:32:09 GMT
I remember when Iron Man 3 was released. message boards were filled with "where are the other Avengers ? this is bullshit." They when the Captain America: Civil War trailer hit the internet, we were flooded with "there's too many characters, this is bullshit." It was almost as if people were moving the goal post so Marvel would fail no matter what they do. Yeah, they started calling Civil War Avengers 2.5.
And yes they wanted the MCU to fail because it got too big. Started wanting them to kill off characters like the MCU was only one POV that was hard to pay attention to.
Civil War is Avengers 2.5. It was an Avengers movie that just happened to be called Captain America: Civil War. I never wanted Marvel movies to fail, but a lot of them were mishandled by Marvel who wanted Avengers commercials instead of movies.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 15, 2020 19:18:27 GMT
What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
No they didn't. Again, they were there for Avengers commercial things, it had nothing to do with world building. Tony could have got along just fine without them and there would have been more room for the story. The individual films should have had the heroes having their own adventures with no interference. This makes it better when they team up for an Avengers movie. The only time it ever worked was in Winter Solider where Cap fit seamlessly into SHIELD. You mean the comics that are routinely butchered to fit the movies and TV shows? No I haven't read those in a long time. How could Tony have gotten on just fine without them? He needed his father's stuff that was with SHIELD for him to figure out the new element to save his life. If he had that stuff all along he would have watched it before. There would have been no reason for him to watch that film if he already had it. No other character in the movie could have given the much needed talk he got at the donut shop. He wouldn't have listened to Happy. Pepper would have made him look stupid with no explanation. And Rhodey was the one that stole the suit. He wouldn't have figured it out himself because he's a narcissist.
That's the thing about having a movie universe with multiple heroes in it. They don't have to go through things alone. Also, Cap has Falcon and Stark has Rhodey. They will never be a lone hero. There will always be multiple heroes in these movies. The difference is that it is the story of the title hero. You don't have a cop movie and then take away the police station. There are still other cops.
Even before the movies the characters routinely had cameos.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 15, 2020 19:19:23 GMT
Yeah, they started calling Civil War Avengers 2.5.
And yes they wanted the MCU to fail because it got too big. Started wanting them to kill off characters like the MCU was only one POV that was hard to pay attention to.
Civil War is Avengers 2.5. It was an Avengers movie that just happened to be called Captain America: Civil War. I never wanted Marvel movies to fail, but a lot of them were mishandled by Marvel who wanted Avengers commercials instead of movies. It was a Captain America movie that had the Avengers in it. It was like saying that Batman v Superman is a Justice League movie that just happens to be called Batman v Superman. No, it was a Batman and Superman movie that just happens to have the other members of the Justice League in it.
That sounds like guilt because no one said shadowrun wanted the MCU to fail.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 19, 2020 15:11:09 GMT
What do you mean they didn't add to the story? They added to the story greatly. Also, have you never picked up a single comic? Heroes make appearances and give perspective to the main character of that book. Same thing we got in the donut shop in Iron Man 2. The donut shop scene and the hangar scene both gave analysis on who Tony is from people not in his inner circle that he wouldn't listen to. SHIELD being in Thor gave him an opposition that weren't actual villains. And them being future Avengers is not an advertisement for a future movie, but something we like to call world building. It's the same as Civil War not being an advertisement for a Black Panther and a Spider-man movie.
The problem pre-Avengers (because that's when that way of thinking stopped) is that people were so used to heroes being the only hero in that solo movie. Look at the post-Avengers solo movies. Pre Avengers, people were crying that they were Avengers ads. After Avengers, "Why don't they call in the Avengers for help?"
No they didn't. Again, they were there for Avengers commercial things, it had nothing to do with world building. Tony could have got along just fine without them and there would have been more room for the story. The individual films should have had the heroes having their own adventures with no interference. This makes it better when they team up for an Avengers movie. The only time it ever worked was in Winter Solider where Cap fit seamlessly into SHIELD. You mean the comics that are routinely butchered to fit the movies and TV shows? No I haven't read those in a long time. How exactly? If Tony can just pull the solution to his paladium poisoning out of his butt at any time then that story goes nowhere, it also doesn't lead to his behaviour in the movie where he is trying to push people away, Widow makes sense also because obviously Shield isn't going to let Tony just be Tony without oversight of some sort, especially when he starts going off the deep end. Plus how was Tony going to get the control of War Machine back to Rhodey? It's was Natasha who did that, by having her and Fury help Tony it actually prevents the Gary Stu syndrome taking hold, Tony is brilliant but he's limited, he cannot do everything himself, sometimes he hits a wall and needs others to help him, because if not where is the conflict? where is the suspense? And they do have their own adventures when it makes sense, Tony slowly dying of palladium poisoning and wrecking his life in a prolonged manner is a situation which would see someone step in, Thor coming to earth for the first time in hundreds if not 1000 years, his Hammer with it and being unable to be moved would get attention, as would the Destroyer armour coming to kill Thor, Shield literally is there to observe and make contact they do not really alter the course of Thor's story but they fit naturally into it given they are Shield and his hammer is an unknown object of great power. The Fury stuff in IM2 also sets up Howards role in TFA, because obviously Cap will need someone of means and intellect to help in the movie set things up, and why wouldn't he be a founder of Shield which formed in part due to the events of TFA, tying Stark's dad to Cap also presents a natural issue to arise between Cap and Tony in Avengers which creates a part of the main character conflicts in the movie. Where the set ups don't fit is in movies like IM3, Dark World, Dr Strange, GOTG 1 & 2 or Black Panther, because these either take place in too short a time period or too far removed from parameters of crossover potential, and as such they don't really have any crossovers, but CA:CW well it's very name kind of demands a massive cross over. Thing is people just want to bitch about the MCU stuff, so they shift the goalpost A LOT, to try and justify it, and to say it was poorly handled is hilarious, how is being the biggest movie franchise in the world, regularly being in the top 5 of every years box office, overwhelmingly well loved and so forth results in something being miss handled exactly? Mishandling is when you do something to detrimental effect, the movies not being as YOU like them to be is not a case of mishandling, it's a case of them not being to your taste, but they are to others, millions of others, hundreds of millions of other peoples taste.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 19, 2020 20:02:33 GMT
No they didn't. Again, they were there for Avengers commercial things, it had nothing to do with world building. Tony could have got along just fine without them and there would have been more room for the story. The individual films should have had the heroes having their own adventures with no interference. This makes it better when they team up for an Avengers movie. The only time it ever worked was in Winter Solider where Cap fit seamlessly into SHIELD. You mean the comics that are routinely butchered to fit the movies and TV shows? No I haven't read those in a long time. How could Tony have gotten on just fine without them? He needed his father's stuff that was with SHIELD for him to figure out the new element to save his life. If he had that stuff all along he would have watched it before. There would have been no reason for him to watch that film if he already had it. No other character in the movie could have given the much needed talk he got at the donut shop. He wouldn't have listened to Happy. Pepper would have made him look stupid with no explanation. And Rhodey was the one that stole the suit. He wouldn't have figured it out himself because he's a narcissist.
That's the thing about having a movie universe with multiple heroes in it. They don't have to go through things alone. Also, Cap has Falcon and Stark has Rhodey. They will never be a lone hero. There will always be multiple heroes in these movies. The difference is that it is the story of the title hero. You don't have a cop movie and then take away the police station. There are still other cops.
Even before the movies the characters routinely had cameos.
He gets along just fine without them by uncovering secrets himself. Perhaps by further investigating Stane and all the things he did with the company Tony didn't know about. Or by just being curious about his fathers work and looking into it. If this had led him to SHIELD it would be fine. Them being there for no reason and handing him everything made it feel like they were shoehorned in. Rhodey can be in the movie, he's a regular in the comics and a part of the Iron Man lore.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 19, 2020 20:06:21 GMT
Civil War is Avengers 2.5. It was an Avengers movie that just happened to be called Captain America: Civil War. I never wanted Marvel movies to fail, but a lot of them were mishandled by Marvel who wanted Avengers commercials instead of movies. It was a Captain America movie that had the Avengers in it. It was like saying that Batman v Superman is a Justice League movie that just happens to be called Batman v Superman. No, it was a Batman and Superman movie that just happens to have the other members of the Justice League in it.
That sounds like guilt because no one said shadowrun wanted the MCU to fail.
No it was an Avengers movie that had Captain America in it. It was also Iron Man 4. Batman v Superman had Wonder Woman in it so it was more like a Trinity movie than anything. Civil War had the Avengers in it and they have a huge role and they fight. It was an Avenger's film before it was a Captain America film. No guilt I'm just defending myself. I made a criticism and you're the rabid fantard who thinks I'm bashing the MCU and hate all the MCU movies. If I wanted Marvel to fail I'd say it and I would bash the movies as hard as I can.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Sept 20, 2020 11:40:59 GMT
It was a Captain America movie that had the Avengers in it. It was like saying that Batman v Superman is a Justice League movie that just happens to be called Batman v Superman. No, it was a Batman and Superman movie that just happens to have the other members of the Justice League in it.
That sounds like guilt because no one said shadowrun wanted the MCU to fail.
No it was an Avengers movie that had Captain America in it. It was also Iron Man 4. Batman v Superman had Wonder Woman in it so it was more like a Trinity movie than anything. Civil War had the Avengers in it and they have a huge role and they fight. It was an Avenger's film before it was a Captain America film. No guilt I'm just defending myself. I made a criticism and you're the rabid fantard who thinks I'm bashing the MCU and hate all the MCU movies. If I wanted Marvel to fail I'd say it and I would bash the movies as hard as I can. So because they are in it that means it was an Avengers movie? Captain America had the main thrust of the story. He was the protagonist. All of the other characters where side characters. So is this a Punisher comic?
Avengers comic?
Nah, it was guilt. I wasn't even talking about you when I said that.
|
|