Director Joss Whedon Confirms the Hulk as a Member of THE AVENGERS Team

In a recent interview, the ensemble film's director has inadvertently let slip the Green Goliath's place as one of the members on the Avengers team roster; garnering the question whether the character will have a villainous role in the movie as well.

In the summer of 2012, Marvel Studios will release a film that is both a great gamble and crowning achievement. The Avengers, the largest ensemble superhero film produced by a major motion picture in cinematic history. The movie will feature characters who have previously been showcased in their own, respective ventures (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Nick Fury, Black Widow and the Hulk) and ones newly introduced into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Hawkeye and a plethora of yet to be revealed names). Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly cult fame, will direct the film, and is already deeply immersed in pre-production happenings.

28rlhjs.jpg

Fans of the Marvel Comics team are anxiously awaiting word of who the central antagonists will be in The Avengers; given th 40-odd years of comics story lines allows for many opportunities. Loki, the Asgardian god of mischief, the Masters of Evil (originally comprised of Baron Zemo, Melter, Radioactive Man, and Black Knight), the sentient robot Ultron, Captain America's nemesis the Red Skull and the shape-shifting alien race the Skulls have all been rumored to appear in the film. According to mainstream Marvel comics mythology, the Avengers were formed to quell unrest caused by Loki, who captured the Hulk and through mind control, unleashed the creature to defeat his brother Thor. Another, alternate reality story (titled The Ultimates) shows Nick Fury, the director of the clandestine government agency S.H.I.E.L.D., assembling the team to fight an alien invasion force who have caused distress in global affairs since World War II.

Based on the events which have already been established in the Marvel movie world, characters and plot points from both "universes" are being combined for the films; while still presenting fans and general audiences with original story lines and subplots not drawn directly from the comics. In Marvel Studios' first film, Iron Man, we learned of the existence of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers Initiative; a government run program to bring together powerful heroes in an effort to combat a yet to be revealed threat. Over the course of the next two films Marvel has set for release, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, audiences will learn more about the need for these heroes to assemble.

In a recent interview with Ed Gross of EarthsMightiest.com, director Joss Whedon spoke about what presenting these fantastical characters to a movie going audience, and what his initial interest to them was:

“Getting people to buy into that world…is a job. You have to separate tone, you have to explain things without spending half your movie explaining things. There’s a lot of work to be done. I love these guys. There all really, really messed up people. These are damaged people.”

When asked how he is planning on combining such a diverse team (costumes and color scheme especially) on film and while making it cohesive, Whedon had this to say:

“We’ve had a lot of the same discussions and they’ve revolved around color and costumes...

You have to hit this in the face. You have to say 'one of these guys is enormous and green, one of these guys has a cape, one of these guys wears the flag, this one’s metal, that guy has a bow and arrow!'

There are ways in which we’re gonna be able to tie them together in the color pallet as it seems. And there are ways in which I simply don’t want to. The Avengers are in some way a slightly ridiculous concept and without getting ever (he really emphasizes ever) campy or losing the integrity of this thing you gotta let their freak flag proudly fly. This is a motley crew. They do not belong together. That’s the point of the whole movie is them discovering in what way they do belong together because they really don’t to the casual observer.”

Even though Kevin Fiege, the head of production for Marvel Studio, has repeatedly stated the Hulk will have a major presence in the film, and actor Mark Ruffulo has taken up the role of the Hulk's human counterpart Bruce Banner (which was recently portrayed by Edward Norton), where the Green Goliath will fit into The Avengers story line had not been addressed. The film's director has now let slip that the Hulk will, at some point in the film, side with the team in their plight. Another interesting point Whedon made, which should appease many Marvel fans, is the inclusion of a bow and arrow into Hawkeye's weapons arsenal.

It is now left for fans to wonder whether the Hulk will first be presented as the team's initial cinematic threat, before joining their ranks; and if so, who with be the final antagonist in the film?

The Avengers stars Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Clark Gregg, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo and Jeremy Renner, and has a scheduled theatrical release date of May 4th, 2012.

Comments

NickinDallas User is offline Correspondent

NickinDallas's picture

I'm still disappointed about the whole Ed Norton thing, so making the Hulk the antagonist was a move I could get on board with. Of course, I realize that by the end of the movie it would have all been just one giant misunderstanding; then group hug, cut to Loki, evil grin, cut to black. That said, I am still looking forward to this movie in a Galactus-like way.

Keven User is offline Music Editor

Keven's picture

interesting. never saw that teaser before. i wonder if when Jackson says 'foes' he's saying hulk is foe #1 then he teams up to fight foe #2. or it is indeed SKRULLS - which I'm betting it is.

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture

Yeah I wonder if this means there will be a second villain set up for the 2nd Avengers film, or if there is just a main villain that is not the Hulk (and he is no the team for most of the film).

I wouldn't want to see the Skrulls randomly introduced as the main villains in the first Avengers film since there has been no mention of them yet.

A Loki/Red Skull combo or something could be very cool though. Or maybe the Enchantress, or even a Hulk enemy as well.

Pietro Filipponi User is offline Editor-in-Chief

Pietro Filipponi's picture
ckal wrote:

Yeah I wonder if this means there will be a second villain set up for the 2nd Avengers film, or if there is just a main villain that is not the Hulk (and he is no the team for most of the film).

I wouldn't want to see the Skrulls randomly introduced as the main villains in the first Avengers film since there has been no mention of them yet.

A Loki/Red Skull combo or something could be very cool though. Or maybe the Enchantress, or even a Hulk enemy as well.

Well, when I originally reported the Skrull and Kree presence in the film it was as tertiary characters. Behind the scenes, pulling stings. It's how Marvel will introduce their cosmic side of things. I noticed when people picked up on the article, it was misconstrued to state the Skrulls would be the MAIN villains.

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture
Pietro Filipponi wrote:
ckal wrote:

Yeah I wonder if this means there will be a second villain set up for the 2nd Avengers film, or if there is just a main villain that is not the Hulk (and he is no the team for most of the film).

I wouldn't want to see the Skrulls randomly introduced as the main villains in the first Avengers film since there has been no mention of them yet.

A Loki/Red Skull combo or something could be very cool though. Or maybe the Enchantress, or even a Hulk enemy as well.

Well, when I originally reported the Skrull and Kree presence in the film it was as tertiary characters. Behind the scenes, pulling stings. It's how Marvel will introduce their cosmic side of things. I noticed when people picked up on the article, it was misconstrued to state the Skrulls would be the MAIN villains.

Depending on how that is handled and who the main villain is, it could be alright. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be behind the scenes if someone like Loki is the main villain, since Loki is completely capable of causing havoc all on his own, and that would take away from his character.

I'm not really sure what scenario would make sense for the Skrulls being the ones 'pulling strings in the background.' The only thing I could see is giving misinformation to the villain to try to start a war or something like that.

Pietro Filipponi User is offline Editor-in-Chief

Pietro Filipponi's picture
ckal wrote:
Pietro Filipponi wrote:
ckal wrote:

Yeah I wonder if this means there will be a second villain set up for the 2nd Avengers film, or if there is just a main villain that is not the Hulk (and he is no the team for most of the film).

I wouldn't want to see the Skrulls randomly introduced as the main villains in the first Avengers film since there has been no mention of them yet.

A Loki/Red Skull combo or something could be very cool though. Or maybe the Enchantress, or even a Hulk enemy as well.

Well, when I originally reported the Skrull and Kree presence in the film it was as tertiary characters. Behind the scenes, pulling stings. It's how Marvel will introduce their cosmic side of things. I noticed when people picked up on the article, it was misconstrued to state the Skrulls would be the MAIN villains.

Depending on how that is handled and who the main villain is, it could be alright. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be behind the scenes if someone like Loki is the main villain, since Loki is completely capable of causing havoc all on his own, and that would take away from his character.

I'm not really sure what scenario would make sense for the Skrulls being the ones 'pulling strings in the background.' The only thing I could see is giving misinformation to the villain to try to start a war or something like that.

That, my friend, is the definition of "pulling strings" BLAM!

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture
Pietro Filipponi wrote:
ckal wrote:
Pietro Filipponi wrote:
ckal wrote:

Yeah I wonder if this means there will be a second villain set up for the 2nd Avengers film, or if there is just a main villain that is not the Hulk (and he is no the team for most of the film).

I wouldn't want to see the Skrulls randomly introduced as the main villains in the first Avengers film since there has been no mention of them yet.

A Loki/Red Skull combo or something could be very cool though. Or maybe the Enchantress, or even a Hulk enemy as well.

Well, when I originally reported the Skrull and Kree presence in the film it was as tertiary characters. Behind the scenes, pulling stings. It's how Marvel will introduce their cosmic side of things. I noticed when people picked up on the article, it was misconstrued to state the Skrulls would be the MAIN villains.

Depending on how that is handled and who the main villain is, it could be alright. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be behind the scenes if someone like Loki is the main villain, since Loki is completely capable of causing havoc all on his own, and that would take away from his character.

I'm not really sure what scenario would make sense for the Skrulls being the ones 'pulling strings in the background.' The only thing I could see is giving misinformation to the villain to try to start a war or something like that.

That, my friend, is the definition of "pulling strings" b!

Haha, yeah I guess you are right. I just had a really round about way of getting there. My mind wanders sometimes...

gtrman User is offline

gtrman's picture

Man, this is good news. He was an original avengers, and no matter the direction they take with the picture, I still had hoped Hulk would be a member. Good article Poni.

Pietro Filipponi User is offline Editor-in-Chief

Pietro Filipponi's picture
gtrman wrote:

Man, this is good news. He was an original avengers, and no matter the direction they take with the picture, I still had hoped Hulk would be a member. Good article Poni.

Thanks pal, I feel the same way. I'd much rather see the Hulk smashing heads side by side with Iron Man and Cap than otherwise. I can't believe no one picked up on this news sooner. Weird

THE MUTANT MARVEL User is offline

THE MUTANT MARVEL's picture

Great site Poni! this is XmutantX from cbm.com...i will continue bein a regular reader here so keep pushin out the great articles!! Smile

Hope 2 god we atleast see a lil of hulk/ thor tension!!!

theguilty1 User is offline

theguilty1's picture

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Phinehas User is offline

Phinehas's picture

Very cool. I don't like that they're changing up Banner with a new actor, but its a small price to pay for a very cool (Dude, I so hope so) movie.

theguilty1 User is offline

theguilty1's picture
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Phinehas User is offline

Phinehas's picture
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Problem with this is, some of the actors on the roster are little on the older side. Every 4-5 years will have a much older cast than the last time and they those numbers tally quickly.

theguilty1 User is offline

theguilty1's picture
Phinehas wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Problem with this is, some of the actors on the roster are little on the older side. Every 4-5 years will have a much older cast than the last time and they those numbers tally quickly.

That's when they can bring in the "Tony Stark comes back as a teenager" bit from the comics. Haha!

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture
theguilty1 wrote:
Phinehas wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Problem with this is, some of the actors on the roster are little on the older side. Every 4-5 years will have a much older cast than the last time and they those numbers tally quickly.

That's when they can bring in the "Tony Stark comes back as a teenager" bit from the comics. Haha!

Yes, it is a problem, but even sequels past three (or less sometimes) are always a problem for bringing the same actors back. Even with younger actors, sometimes they get tired and movie on from the series, or something doesn't work out and they change leads. I'm not sure how many people expect RDJ to be back for IM4. If Marvel does make an IM4 and not start over a few years after IM3.

The one thing I find interesting though...Marvel has these franchises, and assume they are all successful.
Will Marvel eventually reboot its own properties with new actors?
Will they take the series as far as they can go after a trilogy?
Among other questions. In order to keep making Avengers movies, they will need to either keep their current actors and keep making movies with them, or keep making their current franchises with different actors.

I guess pumping another one out in 2 years would be the best idea in regards to keep the same actors, but probably a poor decision from a creative standpoint.

I hope I got my point across, but the thing is, there will be a time post RDJ/Hemsworth/Evans etc, that we are seeing new actors play those roles. When and how is just a question

theguilty1 User is offline

theguilty1's picture
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
Phinehas wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Problem with this is, some of the actors on the roster are little on the older side. Every 4-5 years will have a much older cast than the last time and they those numbers tally quickly.

That's when they can bring in the "Tony Stark comes back as a teenager" bit from the comics. Haha!

Yes, it is a problem, but even sequels past three (or less sometimes) are always a problem for bringing the same actors back. Even with younger actors, sometimes they get tired and movie on from the series, or something doesn't work out and they change leads. I'm not sure how many people expect RDJ to be back for IM4. If Marvel does make an IM4 and not start over a few years after IM3.

The one thing I find interesting though...Marvel has these franchises, and assume they are all successful.
Will Marvel eventually reboot its own properties with new actors?
Will they take the series as far as they can go after a trilogy?
Among other questions. In order to keep making Avengers movies, they will need to either keep their current actors and keep making movies with them, or keep making their current franchises with different actors.

I guess pumping another one out in 2 years would be the best idea in regards to keep the same actors, but probably a poor decision from a creative standpoint.

I hope I got my point across, but the thing is, there will be a time post RDJ/Hemsworth/Evans etc, that we are seeing new actors play those roles. When and how is just a question

To me, if it gets to the point where everything is just being recast and rebooted (i.e. Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) then I have to ask WHY?

Why do we need a whole new Spider-Man trilogy? Do we really need a whole new Fantastic Four movie that has nothing to do with the previous two? I mean, if my memory is correct, both FF flicks were panned by fanboys. I don't think that the failure of two movies is reason enough to make another one just to try to "get it right". They've proven twice that they couldn't.

I may be alone in this, but I really hope there aren't going to be 5, 6 or 7 Avengers movies. I don't need 10 Spider-Man movies. Just make a few really good ones. Seems like we're talking sequels before the first movie even comes out. Stop worrying about setting up a franchise, and just make a good movie. I know it's all about money. Spider-Man sells, so they're gonna pump them out until they stop making money. As a fan, though, it's a bit much. It's getting to the point of over-saturation, especially now that we're seeing reboots of franchises that just ended three years ago.

Robert K User is offline

Robert K's picture

I really think we'll see The Leader somewhere in this movie.

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
Phinehas wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:
ckal wrote:
theguilty1 wrote:

I really can't imagine them pulling out the Skrulls for the very first Avengers flick, unless they plan on splitting everyone back up into their own flicks again. The recent news has been hints about Iron Man 3 and little bits about who's back for Thor 2. I really hope they separate everyone back to their own movies after Avengers, and then set up for another Avengers flick through little hints, just like they've been doing since the first Iron Man. Avengers, to me, is too big of an idea to just do a sequel immediately after the first one. It's going to be interesting seeing how the plan everything out.

If you were going the way I think you were going with this, I like this idea. Sort of have an Avengers movie every 4-5 years or something, while having the individual franchises flourish in between those years? I'd rather not see them try to pump out an Avengers 2 two or three years after the first comes out.

Exactly. You explained it much better than I did. It's early and I'm hungover, so I'm not completely here yet. Haha!

Problem with this is, some of the actors on the roster are little on the older side. Every 4-5 years will have a much older cast than the last time and they those numbers tally quickly.

That's when they can bring in the "Tony Stark comes back as a teenager" bit from the comics. Haha!

Yes, it is a problem, but even sequels past three (or less sometimes) are always a problem for bringing the same actors back. Even with younger actors, sometimes they get tired and movie on from the series, or something doesn't work out and they change leads. I'm not sure how many people expect RDJ to be back for IM4. If Marvel does make an IM4 and not start over a few years after IM3.

The one thing I find interesting though...Marvel has these franchises, and assume they are all successful.
Will Marvel eventually reboot its own properties with new actors?
Will they take the series as far as they can go after a trilogy?
Among other questions. In order to keep making Avengers movies, they will need to either keep their current actors and keep making movies with them, or keep making their current franchises with different actors.

I guess pumping another one out in 2 years would be the best idea in regards to keep the same actors, but probably a poor decision from a creative standpoint.

I hope I got my point across, but the thing is, there will be a time post RDJ/Hemsworth/Evans etc, that we are seeing new actors play those roles. When and how is just a question

To me, if it gets to the point where everything is just being recast and rebooted (i.e. Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) then I have to ask WHY?

Why do we need a whole new Spider-Man trilogy? Do we really need a whole new Fantastic Four movie that has nothing to do with the previous two? I mean, if my memory is correct, both FF flicks were panned by fanboys. I don't think that the failure of two movies is reason enough to make another one just to try to "get it right". They've proven twice that they couldn't.

I may be alone in this, but I really hope there aren't going to be 5, 6 or 7 Avengers movies. I don't need 10 Spider-Man movies. Just make a few really good ones. Seems like we're talking sequels before the first movie even comes out. Stop worrying about setting up a franchise, and just make a good movie. I know it's all about money. Spider-Man sells, so they're gonna pump them out until they stop making money. As a fan, though, it's a bit much. It's getting to the point of over-saturation, especially now that we're seeing reboots of franchises that just ended three years ago.

Well I agree, and FOX is a different story altogether, but Marvel has not made a bomb and hopefully won't. I would hate to see Thor or Cap trashed by critics and fans, but theoretically speaking, if they do make a flop at some point, what do they do to recover? Do they just keep on making new ones and try to improve? Luckily (we will really see next summer), I don't think we will ever deal with a FOX-like flop from Marvel, so I don't think a flop related reboot is going to be the issue.

I'm thinking more along the lines of...what is Marvel going to be bringing to the big screen 30 years from now? If all of their franchises are extremely successful, and go on for 3-5 movies, what else are they going to do? I honestly think that there is a limit to how many characters Marvel can bring to the big screen successfully, and it probably stops a little after Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Iron Fist, etc. Some characters just aren't right for a movie, or even are popular enough. Assuming Marvel still doesn't have their characters like X-Men, FF, and Spider-Man back, and they've exhausted their biggest franchises, what do they have left to do?

I'm with you, in the fact that we really only need a few really good movie from each franchise. But I'd say every 15 years or so they should be updated for the current age of movies and tech. and relevant actors for the time. It would be hard to go without seeing a new Thor movie for 15 years (or any other of our favorite characters).

It's all just fun speculation, but I would hate to see Marvel just dry up and do reboots with no new exciting movies. Unless they get some of their properties back, I think we will even see Marvel reboots (at least with new actors and stay within continuity with the previous films), in the next 15 years or so.

Sorry for the long winded response, things just keep popping into my head. This is starting to look like a blog haha. BLAM!

Interesting John User is offline Web Developer

Interesting John's picture

Great discussion guys Big Grin I love having intelligent users on sites that I run, you guys make it worth all the work Wink Keep it up BLAM!

Phinehas User is offline

Phinehas's picture
ckal wrote:

Well I agree, and FOX is a different story altogether, but Marvel has not made a bomb and hopefully won't.

That's debateable. One may argue that The Incredible Hulk was a commercial flop, though not necessarily a disappointment to fans. I don't know how much they will divert from that property, but I hope not too much. It had a lot of potential that is very much appreciated by this fan. I wish they incorporated the love triangle between Samson, B. Ross, and Banner. As well as his suicide attempt in Canada (Where a lot of that happens there by my understanding...but I digress). It would have made a much more layered film, albeit slowed the pace down but a notch, and would have explained Banner's faith that the Hulk would emerge upon his exit from the helicopter.

Bryan Kritz User is offline Managing Editor

Bryan Kritz's picture

ckal wrote:
Sorry for the long winded response, things just keep popping into my head. This is starting to look like a blog haha. BLAM!

Good stuff guys!

Just an FYI-If you want when using the quote button, you can delete the extra text if you want to. Just keep the block sections wrapped around what you are quoting.

I feel Whedon can do the job here but there are a lot of characters to juggle and as long as they don't work too hard on setting up future movies, it can work beautifully.

ckal User is offline

ckal's picture

@InterestingJohn

Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated! BLAM!

@Phineas

Yes, I guess you could make that point, it wasn't a flop by any means, but may have not met expectations. I think the majority of fans also enjoyed it (although some didn't)

@Bryan Kritz

Sorry man! I just got a little wrapped up in the conversation =P I'll make sure to shorten the quotes next time!

BLAM BLAM! mufu***s!!