Sorry, Big Guy! Why Another Standalone Hulk Film Won't Work...

So, Mark Ruffalo sent the interwebs into a tizzy earlier this week when he said that he would be interested in making another stand-alone Hulk movie. In an interview with Digital Spy (via Schmoes Know, because that's where I get all of my movie news), Ruffalo confirmed that Marvel is "entertaining the idea." He goes on to say that, prior to the Avengers, it wasn't even a consideration, but that since, it is a possibility.

Ruffalo was fantastic in his portrayal of Bruce Banner/The Hulk in the Avengers. Arguably one of the best parts of the film, his version of The Hulk was what we, as comic-book movie fans, had been waiting for. He managed to bring that perfect balance to the film, both as Bruce Banner and The Hulk. While I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to another stand-alone Hulk film, I completely understand Marvel's hesitation with the property.

So, let's see where we're at, shall we? First there was the The Incredible Hulk TV series that ran on CBS from 1978-1982. Starring Bill Bixby as Bruce Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, it told the origin story of the character and showcased his race to find a cure for his affliction. The series ended with Banner still searching for a cure and running from Jack McGee, the reporter out to unmask his secret. A number of TV movies were made after the series run, culminating in 1990's Death of the Incredible Hulk, where Banner/the Hulk, did in fact die in the end. Generally thought of as a good depiction of the characters, it remains one of the best telling's of the Hulk's story arc.

For his next outing, we have 2003's Ang Lee directed, The Hulk. Starring Eric Bana as Bruce Banner, and for some unknown reason, Ang Lee as the motion-captured Hulk, the film was a disappointment for the studio. It's world-wide box office total was about $245M on a budget of $137M, making it just barely profitable. The reviews for the film were mixed, many citing the altered origin story, depressing story arc for the characters and poor CGI as the reasons for not enjoying the film. While I generally applaud studios for thinking outside the box when it comes to their properties, The Hulk went beyond that, right into off-the-rails territory. The addition of Banner's father and his mutated DNA and the fact that the angrier he got, the bigger the Hulk got were enough to turn even the most die-hard fan off. Which is too bad, because I thought that Eric Bana was the perfect choice for the mild mannered Bruce Banner. Overall, the movie was a huge disappointment to fans everywhere.

So, now it's 2008 and Marvel has begun to plant the seeds of it's cinematic universe with the release of the first Iron Man movie. Quietly on the heels of that release came The Incredible Hulk. Starring Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, this time Marvel skipped over the origins of the character, instead choosing to show how the Hulk came to be in a series of comic-book like panels at the beginning of the film and then jumping directly into the story. Officially considered canon in the MCU, this film had a more stream-lined feel to it, sticking with the more well known origins and motivations of the character. The film was a modest success, making slightly more at the box office than it's predecessor. Overall, I think this was a way better film, and Edward Norton was a competent Bruce Banner, although definitely not my first choice for the role. The villain of the film, The Abomination, was the perfect foe for our unorthodox hero and the fight scenes were out of this world. This film still didn't blow the masses away, however.

By the time that The Avengers rolled around in 2012, Norton had been given the boot, and Ruffalo had been hired to fill Banner's shoes. Playing both Banner and the motion-captured Hulk, Ruffalo stole the show. And that's when it started. Fans rumbling about a new stand-alone Hulk film, this time with Ruffalo at the forefront. Wouldn't it be great? He did such a fantastic job, he could do it again. The Hulk needs his own film... seemingly forgetting that the last two times the studio tried this, no one seemed to care.

There are a number of reasons why a stand-alone Hulk film doesn't work, no matter how hard the studio tries to make it happen. The first, and foremost, is the Hulk himself. When people go to see a superhero, or comic book based movie, if you will, they want to see the comic book character. That's difficult to do in a Hulk stand-alone, if you want to tell any sort of story that doesn't involve the Hulk doing nothing but smashing things for 2 hours. While Tony Stark is Iron Man, Peter Parker is Spiderman and Logan is The Wolverine, Bruce Banner is not the Hulk. They are two separate characters, with extremely different motivations. While they may share the same DNA, Banner has spent every waking moment of his life, since the accident, trying to eradicate the other part of himself. Shockingly enough, the Hulk doesn't want to be eradicated, which puts the two of them at odds with one another, right from the get go. Any significant character development or story arc has to be told from Banner's point of view, leading to more screen time for the man, and less screen time for the beast. While personally this doesn't bother me, I know there are a lot of people out there who would be, and have been, disappointed with that sort of story telling. There's a fine line between too much Banner and not enough Hulk and Marvel, so far hasn't been able to balance it for a full two hour movie. Now, it is possible for the studio to go in the complete opposite direction and do something like a Planet Hulk movie... which, don't get me wrong, would be all sorts of cool and wicked and awesome... but, I also think it might get old, pretty fast. While I like the Hulk character, there isn't a whole lot that can be done with him in regards to character development. And while I know a lot of people would love to see him smash aliens in a gladiator style smack-down, I don't think it would hold water for a full two hours. There has to be a little more substance to it for it to be placed in the same regard as the other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They've raised the bar, and now, anything less will be considered a failure.

The reason that the Hulk worked, and worked so well, in the Avengers was because he wasn't the main protagonist. When he was on screen, they made the most of it, and that's why we fell in love with him. He was used in the best possible way, but the film wasn't centred around him. He wasn't forced to carry the storyline all the way through, and that's why it was refreshing and bold when he was on the screen. While I have no doubt that eventually we will see another Hulk stand-alone film, I can't see Marvel jumping on board any time soon. I don't think that a Hulk film fits in with their plans, just yet, but I'm sure eventually Bruce Banner will grace the silver screen once again. Let's hope they are able to balance the character's two persona's and that we get the Hulk film that the character deserves.      

Is Marvel Trying Too Hard To Fit A Square Peg In A Round Hole?

News broke earlier this week that Edgar Wright was leaving the Ant-Man project over at Marvel, after 8 years of development, due to creative difference. Basically, Marvel wanted Ant-Man to fit into their already established, ever expanding, Cinematic Universe, and Wright wasn't willing to compromise his vision of the film to let them do that. Rumour has it that Marvel went ahead and got an in-house writer to do rewrites on the latest Wright/Cornish script, and Wright finally said to hell with it and walked. Not that I can blame him. I mean he's been working on this project since 2006... long before the Marvel Cinematic Universe was even a blip on the radar. And it's definitely not cool for someone to tamper with and change your work without your knowledge. So, I can understand how it came to this in the end.

I got a chance to call in and talk with Kristian Harloff and Mark Ellis, briefly, over on The Schmoes Know Movie Show this past Thursday night about this. (If you're not watching it, you really should be. It's a great show. 6:00pm-8:00pm every Thursday at www.schmoesknow.com ). I mentioned that, to me, this looks an awful lot like the problems that occurred in 2005 with Bryan Singer and Fox. For those that don't know, just before filming was to begin on the third and fourth X-Men films, Singer abruptly left the project, taking his script with him, to direct Superman Returns. The studio, in a bit of a panic, eventually hired Brett Ratner and we got X-Men: The Last Stand. Enough said! Kristian mentioned that he doesn't see it this way, as Marvel is a different studio than Fox, and that they have a better grasp on their properties. While I understand the logic, and do agree, it's still a huge gamble on their part, I think. Ant-Man is a risky enough character to begin with, but replacing a Wright/Cornish script with something written in-house and Wright as director with a capable, albeit average director (given the short-list that's going around, anyway!) is just not what you want to see happen. I liked the idea of Wright because he was outside of the box, and I think he would have brought an interesting take on the character. I also think that his name would have brought people, who might not have been interested in the character of Ant-Man but were definitely interested in the name Edgar Wright, to see this film.

But this got me thinking... Is Marvel at a place where they're now willing to sacrifice vision so that all of their properties can fit inside the little box that they've created, known as the MCU? These days, it seems that everything that they touch is forced to fit into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. All of their Avengers related movies are included, of course, and so is their Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television show. It makes sense that their new Marvel's Agent Carter show, debuting in the 2014-2015 TV season, will also be part of the MCU, as it will follow the life of Peggy Carter, after she loses Steve Rogers, and will basically tell the story of the development of S.H.I.E.L.D., and I'm assuming, the infiltration of HYDRA. To me, that makes sense as well. The main backbone of the MCU has been S.H.I.E.L.D. from the beginning, so I understand that properties involving the agency will play a part in the bigger picture.

When the Defenders project with Netflix was announced in the fall of 2013, I was glad that we were getting something a little different. Set to air sometime in 2015, it will be comprised of four, 13-episode story arcs, featuring Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, culminating in a mini-series based on The Defenders. This is awesome. Netflix releases all of it's program's episodes at once, making it the perfect opportunity to binge-watch over the weekend. And then word came out that these properties too, would be part of the bigger, Marvel Cinematic Universe. Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, even went as far as to say that if these characters prove popular on Netflix, that it's possible they could become feature films. And to this I say, why? Why do they all have to be related? Can't The MCU and The Defenders Universe be two separate entities?

Don't get me wrong... I love the idea of Marvel expanding it's brand and branching out in different directions. The winner in this scenario is clearly me, the fan. I just worry that things are going to get muddled, with so much going on. Let's face it, while I enjoyed Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it had some serious issues in it's first season, that were only fixed once Captain America: The Winter Soldier was finally released in April, and they could reveal that S.H.I.E.L.D. was actually compromised and was virtually HYDRA. This means that everything that happened with the battle of New York in the Avengers is going to play heavily on what happens in these Defenders projects, as they are based out of New York City, as well. This is an awful lot of canon to carry around and I'm not sure that it's going to work as well as they hope. Sure, a lot of people are interested in the movies that Marvel releases. That doesn't mean that they're going to watch the television shows and streaming series, in order to remain "caught up" in what's going on in the MCU. For example, you really needed to watch Winter Soldier on it's opening weekend in April, as the two episodes of S.H.I.E.L.D. that surrounded it, played heavily into the events that happened in the film. Not everyone watches every genre with the same enthusiasm, and I know that while Marvel's is hoping for it, they are banking an awful lot on the idea that those that care about the MCU are going to automatically care about the other related projects.

I fear, in forcing these projects to fit into the box that they've created, that they may be compromising part of their individuality, as well. Up until now, I've enjoyed the fact that Marvel has let it's characters be themselves, while using the threads of the MCU to bind them together in a cohesive package. With this Ant-Man debacle currently going on, it appears that they are getting more aggressive in what they will and will not accept in their universe. A lot of people have cried foul, and said that Marvel should have just given the reigns to Wright and let him do what he wanted, like they have in the past with their directors, like Favreau, Black and Whedon. Make no mistake about it, people, while Favreau, Black and Whedon were able to bring their visions to the screen, they by no means, ever had free reign to do whatever they wanted. Marvel has always been in the driver seat when it comes to their properties and what they do and do not want to see on the screen. It just may not have been as obvious as it is with this whole Edgar Wright thing right now, but it's always been the case. Marvel is in charge, and, it looks like, right now, is not willing to compromise on it's vision, no matter what kind of talent they are dealing with. Let's just hope that it doesn't backfire on them.

Say It Ain't So, Ant-Man! Say It Ain't So...

Disappointing news out of the Marvel offices today. According to Variety, Edgar Wright is taking his stuff and going home. That's right, you heard me correctly. Due to "differences in the vision of their film" Edgar Wright has stepped away from the Ant-Man project that he has been working on, on and off, since 2006.

This seriously sucks! I am not happy about this news at all...

Although a large part of the Avengers in the comic book world, Ant-Man is a relatively unknown property to the general public. Much like the hiring of James Gunn to direct the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy, Edgar Wright was an orthodox, but very interesting choice to helm the project. Wright is a bold film-maker, with a distinct vision, and I was looking forward to his take on one of Marvel's more interesting characters. Apparently, that's not going to happen now.

Now, this project has had it's ups and downs along the way, so, although disappointing, in the grand scheme of things, it's not really surprising. The development of the film began back before the release of the original Iron Man, and initial word out of Wright's camp in 2010 was that Ant Man wouldn't be part of the MCU, as it didn't really fit with the origin story that he had written for the character. Needless to say, Kevin Feige and Marvel were probably not pleased to hear this, as they are working very, very hard to make sure that everything in the MCU lines up just perfectly. By 2011 there had been three drafts of the script submitted. By early 2013, Kevin Feige was still talking about the script being modified to fit into the MCU. You can see where this is going, can't you? Wright still maintained that Ant-Man was a standalone film and that "it is pretty standalone in the way that we're linking it to the others." Although Marvel set an initial release date of November 6, 2015 (which they eventually pushed up to July 31, 2015) and pre-production began in the fall of 2013, it was obvious that Feige and Wright were still at odds in regards to this property and where it would fit in Marvel's overall, big picture, universe.

And then, Paul Rudd was cast as Scott Lang... very outside the box, but very interesting!... and Michael Douglas was cast as Hank Pym... again, outside the box and very, very interesting! And suddenly, this was a very, very, very interesting property. A little unorthodox, a little quirky, it along with GOTG showed that Marvel was willing to take risks. And all of us comic book nerds held our breath in anticipation...

And now here we are, 13 months out from the release of the film, and the director has packed up and moved on to bigger? better? more interesting? things. While this is disappointing, the real problem comes in regards to the script. Is Edgar Wright pulling a Bryan Singer (who famously left the third X-Men film, taking his script with him to direct Superman Returns)? Because if that's the case, then Marvel is screwed. Like, seriously screwed! I honestly can't see, if their visions of how and what the characters are, are so different, how Wright and writing partner Joe Cornish would leave their script with Kevin Feige and Marvel, unless they were contractually obligated to. And, without a script, Marvel is never going to make it's July 2015 release date. The movie hasn't started filming yet (production isn't slated to start until the fall, although isn't that a little late? Is it just me? I mean, isn't this going to be a pretty heavy special effects laden movie? Is that enough time to do all that?), meaning there is no way to tell where exactly in pre-production they are with the project.

Word is that Marvel already has a new director mind, so I would expect an announcement of some kind in the next few days. It will be interesting to see who they have chosen to replace Wright. No matter who it is, there will always be the rumblings of "But what would we have gotten if Wright had chosen to complete this project?" As sweaty movie nerds, we never seem to be content. And when studios make decisions like this one, I can understand our anger and confusion. Let's just hope that, whomever they choose, that director knocks it out of the park, and the only question we ask is "Edgar who?"