Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Marvel Cinematic Universe - Start Watching Loki; Please Respect Spoilers From Outside the Show


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, flysack said:

I've never seen a thing with her. Does she have gravitas? Is she a great actress or just a pretty face with enough skills to do a decent job?

For example: I think Scarlett is a good actress. She's an A-lister without a doubt and carries her own films. But I couldn't see her leading the MCU, even as another character. 

Well, she won the Best Actress Oscar in 2016 for her part in The Room, so a little.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The guy sitting behind us was having one hell of an experience. He threw out so many "Oh my God"s that I was genuinely concerned for him. Then he loud cried for the last 15 minutes without pause. He w

Pepper Potts’s head

well done guys!  You had to pollute one of the few threads that is not stained with what ever political side you support.

11 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Kind of disagree on Iron Mans non A-List status. Marvels in the1990s were all about Mutants and Spider-Man.....but the Avengers were still The Avengers. 

In the 90s Marvel was desperate for cash. They sold all the movie rights they could. There's a reason they still had the rights to the Avengers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, flysack said:

I've never seen a thing with her. Does she have gravitas? Is she a great actress or just a pretty face with enough skills to do a decent job?

For example: I think Scarlett is a good actress. She's an A-lister without a doubt and carries her own films. But I couldn't see her leading the MCU, even as another character. 

She won an Oscar :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcdjr1 said:

You have to remember that Iron Man wasn't a A-level character before the first MCU movie came out, and RDJ wasn't an A-lister, either. He was a big name from his Brat Pack days in the 80s, but he was not doing anything big anymore.

Agreed...but don't lessen the effect the Sherlock Holmes series had on his re-birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bcdjr1 said:

Which was post Iron Man.

by a year?  Let's face it, Iron Man was his chance, and Sherlock Holmes solidified his stardom was back.   Merely pointing out it wasn't just Marvel that brought him back.

Not to mention, he would have been filming Holmes BEFORE the release of IM 1.

Edited by MarvinTScamper
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah easy to forget now, but Iron Man and Hulk were big gambles at the time. Comic book movies had been bombing for the previous couple of years (FF4 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, X-Men 3: Last Stand, Spidey 3, Blade 3.) Batman Begins was a modest hit and reboot of the Batman franchise, but The Dark Knight hadn't come out yet (and came out after Iron Man.)

 

There was a famous headline back when Marvel announced they were doing their own films with Iron Man and Hulk because they didn't have the rights to their best properties "Marvel breaks out the B-Squad." That headline gets lampooned all the time now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarvinTScamper said:

by a year?  Let's face it, Iron Man was his chance, and Sherlock Holmes solidified his stardom was back.   Merely pointing out it wasn't just Marvel that brought him back.

Not to mention, he would have been filming Holmes BEFORE the release of IM 1.

Yeah, but Holmes was not a good movie and wouldn't have done nearly as well if not for the success of Iron Man. People went to see that movie that would've passed had they not seen RDJ and loved him the year before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Buckna said:

Yeah easy to forget now, but Iron Man and Hulk were big gambles at the time. Comic book movies had been bombing for the previous couple of years (FF4 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, X-Men 3: Last Stand, Spidey 3, Blade 3.) Batman Begins was a modest hit and reboot of the Batman franchise, but The Dark Knight hadn't come out yet (and came out after Iron Man.)

 

There was a famous headline back when Marvel announced they were doing their own films with Iron Man and Hulk because they didn't have the rights to their best properties "Marvel breaks out the B-Squad." That headline gets lampooned all the time now.

Hulk is definitely not B squad

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarvinTScamper said:

by a year?  Let's face it, Iron Man was his chance, and Sherlock Holmes solidified his stardom was back.   Merely pointing out it wasn't just Marvel that brought him back.

Not to mention, he would have been filming Holmes BEFORE the release of IM 1.

According to Wikipedia, Downey was cast as Holmes in June of 2008, Iron Man came out on May 2nd of 2008. RDJ had been getting some love on the independent movie circuit and was mounting a comeback (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a great underrated movie and I liked A Scanner Darkly even if it bombed) but Iron Man made him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, flysack said:

They used to be until SONY ruined the franchise. The FF used to be Marvel's best team in the comics. 

FF was the best team for a couple years in the 70s. But they were overtaken by Avengers and X-Men and never reestablished themselves as the top team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buckna said:

According to Wikipedia, Downey was cast as Holmes in June of 2008, Iron Man came out on May 2nd of 2008. RDJ had been getting some love on the independent movie circuit and was mounting a comeback (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a great underrated movie and I liked A Scanner Darkly even if it bombed) but Iron Man made him.

If you haven't seen A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints I highly recommend it.

And let's not forget Tropic Thunder, which also came out in 2008 with Iron Man, as a key cog in RDJ's resurgence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buckna said:

He was as a movie franchise after the Ang Lee bomb.

We are not talking about "as a movie franchise". Marvel's heavy hitters were always Spiderman and Hulk with Captain America as the top 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shadyridr said:

We are not talking about "as a movie franchise". Marvel's heavy hitters were always Spiderman and Hulk with Captain America as the top 3.

This thread is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Hulk was indeed a B Squad property back then and until the Avengers most thought he would never be translatable to the movie screen. A lot of people had doubts about them putting him in the Avengers movie because it had been screwed up not once, but twice before in less than 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chaka said:

The RDJ Sherlock Holmes movies sucked. They were pure garbage and RDJ is lucky they didn't hurt his career.

I wasn't a huge fan but the first one was huge (2nd one was godawful.). And I forgot about him being in Tropic Thunder although a screwball comedy isn't quite the same as a smash hit like Iron Man was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chaka said:

The RDJ Sherlock Holmes movies sucked. They were pure garbage and RDJ is lucky they didn't hurt his career.

ok fanboys....easy now.

SH 1 = $524M

SH 2 = $545M

Both earned 4x their budgets.

Iron Man 1 = $580M

You might have thought they sucked, the world saw them nearly as equals to the HUGE hit you're gagging on.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

plus, this who thing centers more on the success of Favreau and Paramount for the IM franchise, Joss Whedon and Walt Disney for the Avengers...not the Marvel characters, per se.  I'm probably not alone in thinking that, I imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MarvinTScamper said:

ok fanboys....easy now.

SH 1 = $524M

SH 2 = $545M

Both earned 4x their budgets. 

Iron Man 1 = $580M

You might have thought they sucked, the world saw them nearly as equals to the HUGE hit you're gagging on.

1) Who cares?

2) Sherlock Holmes got a bump from IM and TT.

3) And they still sucked.  Horrible dog #### tacos on turd sticks. No amount of profit changes that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarvinTScamper said:

ok fanboys....easy now.

SH 1 = $524M

SH 2 = $545M

Both earned 4x their budgets.

Iron Man 1 = $580M

You might have thought they sucked, the world saw them nearly as equals to the HUGE hit you're gagging on.

Indiana Jones 4 made over $300 million. Do you think that means it's a well-loved movie or that a lot of people saw it because of other factors?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buckna said:

I wasn't a huge fan but the first one was huge (2nd one was godawful.). And I forgot about him being in Tropic Thunder although a screwball comedy isn't quite the same as a smash hit like Iron Man was.

Nope but his character in TT got huge recognition far beyond the movie's success.

Tom Cruise also got a huge bump from TT.

I actually didn't think to much of it when I saw it in theaters but I watched it again last year and, for me, it's one of those movies that get funnier each time I watch it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcdjr1 said:

Indiana Jones 4 made over $300 million. Do you think that means it's a well-loved movie or that a lot of people saw it because of other factors?

My apologies.  I should have apparently said that Iron Man 1 & 2, despite their unrivaled crazy brilliance, were barely able to make more than some "horrible dog #### tacos on turd sticks" movies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MarvinTScamper said:

My apologies.  I should have apparently said that Iron Man 1 & 2, despite their unrivaled crazy brilliance, were barely able to make more than some "horrible dog #### tacos on turd sticks" movies.

No doubt. What do you think would have happened if Sherlock Holmes came out before Iron Man?

I never said they didn't make money, just that they were terrible (which they were), but did you honestly like either film?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chaka said:

No doubt. What do you think would have happened if Sherlock Holmes came out before Iron Man?

I never said they didn't make money, just that they were terrible (which they were), but did you honestly like either film?

I loved them both.  LOVED.  But, I love Guy Ritchie films, I like the way he films.  I REALLY liked the plots.

I really think you're giving too much credit to Iron Man.  That film didn't make Downey a better actor.  It might have helped, but it's not like Jude Law is a nobody, or Rachel McAdams.  We obviously differ in our views.  That's fine.  There has been plenty of dreck from Marvel.  And it has been done with great actors, like Ed Norton. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Buckna said:

This thread is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Hulk was indeed a B Squad property back then and until the Avengers most thought he would never be translatable to the movie screen. A lot of people had doubts about them putting him in the Avengers movie because it had been screwed up not once, but twice before in less than 10 years.

Yea, a cinematic translation of Hulk? Unpossible.

Bucka, you're 30 years old or younger, aren't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Capella said:

That was a long time ago. Sure Sony ruined them but that's part of the equation. I just don't see it with them. 

If Marvel/Disney ever reacquired the FF rights, they would be awesome. 

 

The villains alone would make it great. With the exception of Thanos, MCU villains aren't that great. Credit Hiddleston for making Loki so amazing in the MCU, because he isn't as great in the comics, imo. 

 

But Dr. Doom?

Galactus?

I'd kill to see Marvel get a hold of them.

ETA: Annihulus! K'lrt the Super Skrull! The Skrulls! A Skrull invasion movie! 

Edited by flysack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Game of Shadows was a domestic disappointment, it came in well under projections on opening weekend and well under the first movies take. It made a #### ton of money overseas, just like Pacific Rim, Battleship, BvsS, and tons of other blockbusters. There's a reason the 3rd is still in development hell and has never even come close to being filmed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Buckna said:

This thread is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Hulk was indeed a B Squad property back then and until the Avengers most thought he would never be translatable to the movie screen. A lot of people had doubts about them putting him in the Avengers movie because it had been screwed up not once, but twice before in less than 10 years.

I'm not gonna keep debating this because not really worth my time but essentially Iron Man was  B list Marvel character but became A list due to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's direction (AKA Kevin Feige) and RDJ's portrayal. That's what we were discussing. Hulk on the other hand was ALWAYS an A list Marvel character (I would say top 3 all time) and continued to be one despite two flop movies..

Edited by shadyridr
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shadyridr said:

I'm not gonna keep debating this because not really worth my time but essentially Iron Man was  B list Marvel character but became A list due to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's direction (AKA Kevin Feige) and RDJ's portrayal. That's what we were discussing. Hulk on the other hand was ALWAYS an A list Marvel character (I would say top 3 all time).

Agree on Hulk. But Iron Man/Stark was only B list if you confine the A-list to Spidey, Hulk, and Cap. Stark is pretty much the next in line, imo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, flysack said:

Yea, a cinematic translation of Hulk? Unpossible.

Bucka, you're 30 years old or younger, aren't you?

You couldn't be more wrong, I watched Ferrigno growing up and loved that show. TV is a very, very different medium than film, especially tv from 30+ years ago compared to film of the last decade.

cin·e·mat·ic
ADJECTIVE
  1. of or relating to motion pictures:
    "cinematic output"
    • having qualities characteristic of motion pictures:
Edited by Buckna
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, flysack said:

If Marvel/Disney ever reacquired the FF rights, they would be awesome. 

 

The villains alone would make it great. With the exception of Thanos, MCU villains aren't that great. Credit Hiddleston for making Loki so amazing in the MCU, because he isn't as great in the comics, imo. 

 

But Dr. Doom?

Galactus?

I'd kill to see Marvel get a hold of them.

Yep and this is also why everyone is so disappointed in the DC Universe movies. They have such iconic superheroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash) but they also have iconic villains (Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Two Face, Catwoman, Riddler, etc) which Marvel pales in comparison to (and they have even admitted as such). I often say my favorite Marvel villain portrayal is Kilgrave which nobody except the most hardcore Marvel fans have heard of.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buckna said:

You couldn't be more wrong, I watched Ferrigno growing up and loved that show. TV is a very, very different medium than film, especially tv from 30+ years ago compared to film of the last decade.

cin·e·mat·ic
ADJECTIVE
  1. of or relating to motion pictures:
    "cinematic output"
    • having qualities characteristic of motion pictures:

Yes, television was different then. But so were movies. Point?

Cinematic, according to your definition, related to motion pictures. 

Motion picture

Phrase. Noun. 

Pictures that f@#king move.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, shadyridr said:

I'm not gonna keep debating this because not really worth my time but essentially Iron Man was  B list Marvel character but became A list due to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's direction (AKA Kevin Feige) and RDJ's portrayal. That's what we were discussing. Hulk on the other hand was ALWAYS an A list Marvel character (I would say top 3 all time) and continued to be one despite two flop movies..

Same here, not worth nerd fighting over. I didn't write the headline back then, was just relating the story and the supposed logic behind it.

Edited by Buckna
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shadyridr said:

Yep and this is also why everyone is so disappointed in the DC Universe movies. They have such iconic superheroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash) but they also have iconic villains (Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Two Face, Catwoman, Riddler, etc) which Marvel pales in comparison to (and they have even admitted as such). I often say my favorite Marvel villain portrayal is Kilgrave which nobody except the most hardcore Marvel fans have heard of.

I knew little of Kilgrave from the comics, but holy hell did Tenet nail that guy. 

 

But hey, it's David freaking Tenet. That guy is an incredible actor. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shadyridr said:

Yep and this is also why everyone is so disappointed in the DC Universe movies. They have such iconic superheroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash) but they also have iconic villains (Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Two Face, Catwoman, Riddler, etc) which Marvel pales in comparison to (and they have even admitted as such). I often say my favorite Marvel villain portrayal is Kilgrave which nobody except the most hardcore Marvel fans have heard of.

Nothing tops the Joker as a villain. 


But Doom > Luthor imo. Doom's story is great, his pathos very tangible, his cunning unrivaled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, flysack said:

Agree on Hulk. But Iron Man/Stark was only B list if you confine the A-list to Spidey, Hulk, and Cap. Stark is pretty much the next in line, imo. 

Nah, the biggest titles in Marvel in the 90s were Spider-Man, X-titles (of which there seemed to be 20), and the Hulk.  Punisher or FF probably next in line after that, maybe Thor.  I would say Daredevil came in above Iron Man and Captain America, too.  Ghost Rider was in that mix somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, flysack said:

Yes, television was different then. But so were movies. Point?

Cinematic, according to your definition, related to motion pictures. 

Motion picture

Phrase. Noun. 

Pictures that f@#king move.

 

Well generally motion picture is synonymous with movies and films. As is the word cinematic which this previous conversation came from which is literally derived from the word cinema. The Hulk was said to be unrelated and/or untranslatable to the movie screen in a way that would work for modern audiences about a decade ago by many people. Many people that turned out to be dead wrong. The fact that a tv show managed to have modest success for 5 seasons 30+ years before is barely relevant when there were two disappointing Hulk films made less than 10 years before the Avengers came out. Some people had the same reservations about Guardians in that a cgi Raccoon and a talking tree wouldn't work either and were wrong yet again.

 

Even though it made money, ever notice how in Marvel specials and or even on reshows on tv where every other marvel film is on endless rotation or that no one ever talks about or refers to the previous The Incredible Hulk film? Something really rubbed Marvel the wrong way about that film whether it was the rumors about Norton being impossible to work with or maybe it just didn't turn out exactly how they envisioned.

Edited by Buckna
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MarvinTScamper said:

I loved them both.  LOVED.  But, I love Guy Ritchie films, I like the way he films.  I REALLY liked the plots.

I really think you're giving too much credit to Iron Man.  That film didn't make Downey a better actor.  It might have helped, but it's not like Jude Law is a nobody, or Rachel McAdams.  We obviously differ in our views.  That's fine.  There has been plenty of dreck from Marvel.  And it has been done with great actors, like Ed Norton. 

I love Sherlock Holmes movies too. I think a lot of people get hung up that SH was not some stoic bore like Basil Rathbone in the black and white flicks when in the books SH dabbled in all sorts of drugs and did a lot of street fighting. If that's not it, then I have no idea. I thought they were great and bought both of them on Blue Ray. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bcdjr1 said:

Nah, the biggest titles in Marvel in the 90s were Spider-Man, X-titles (of which there seemed to be 20), and the Hulk.  Punisher or FF probably next in line after that, maybe Thor.  I would say Daredevil came in above Iron Man and Captain America, too.  Ghost Rider was in that mix somewhere.

I would definitely include the XMen above Captain America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buckna said:

This thread is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Hulk was indeed a B Squad property back then and until the Avengers most thought he would never be translatable to the movie screen. A lot of people had doubts about them putting him in the Avengers movie because it had been screwed up not once, but twice before in less than 10 years.

I think the apprehension about the Hulk thru the 90s was more about the technology....not the character.  Dale Keown's Hulk was a popular seller back in the early 90s. 

 

Ang Lee's Hulk isn't bad save for the fact that the villain just flat out sucked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buckna said:

Well generally motion picture is synonymous with movies and films. As is the word cinematic which this previous conversation came from which is literally derived from the word cinema. The Hulk was said to be unrelated and/or untranslatable to the movie screen in a way that would work for modern audiences about a decade ago by many people. Many people that turned out to be dead wrong. The fact that a tv show managed to have modest success for 5 seasons 30+ years before is barely relevant when there were two disappointing Hulk films made less than 10 years before the Avengers came out. Some people had the same reservations about Guardians in that a cgi Raccoon and a talking tree wouldn't work either and were wrong yet again.

 

Even though it made money, ever notice how in Marvel specials and or even on reshows on tv where every other marvel film is on endless rotation or that no one ever talks about or refers to the previous The Incredible Hulk film? Something really rubbed Marvel the wrong way about that film whether it was the rumors about Norton being impossible to work with or maybe it just didn't turn out exactly how they envisioned.

"Last time I was in New York I sort of broke Harlem."

- Rufalo as Banner in The Avengers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buckna said:

Well generally motion picture is synonymous with movies and films. As is the word cinematic which this previous conversation came from which is literally derived from the word cinema. The Hulk was said to be unrelated and/or untranslatable to the movie screen in a way that would work for modern audiences about a decade ago by many people. Many people that turned out to be dead wrong. The fact that a tv show managed to have modest success for 5 seasons 30+ years before is barely relevant when there were two disappointing Hulk films made less than 10 years before the Avengers came out. Some people had the same reservations about Guardians in that a cgi Raccoon and a talking tree wouldn't work either and were wrong yet again.

 

Even though it made money, ever notice how in Marvel specials and or even on reshows on tv where every other marvel film is on endless rotation or that no one ever talks about or refers to the previous The Incredible Hulk film? Something really rubbed Marvel the wrong way about that film whether it was the rumors about Norton being impossible to work with or maybe it just didn't turn out exactly how they envisioned.

As far as I can tell, the Ang Lee Hulk is part of the MCU.  Didn't they reference it in Norton's Hulk?

 

I think the lack of THE INCREDIBLE HULK on television is probably due to the idea that they don't have a Hulk sequel in the works.  No sense promoting it if they aren't getting anything out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

As far as I can tell, the Ang Lee Hulk is part of the MCU.  Didn't they reference it in Norton's Hulk?

 

I think the lack of THE INCREDIBLE HULK on television is probably due to the idea that they don't have a Hulk sequel in the works.  No sense promoting it if they aren't getting anything out of it.

Ang Lee's Hulk is not in the MCU. The Incredible Hulk,the movie with Norton and the Abomination, is in the MCU. They had a different origin for the Hulk in that which was shown in flashes during the opening credits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flysack said:

"Last time I was in New York I sort of broke Harlem."

- Rufalo as Banner in The Avengers.

They have kept the movie in the MCU canon, but it's rarely ever discussed. Even your little blurb was what, 12 words total? The only other mention's have been maybe Banner's cabin in AoS or Ross showing up again in Civil War. As I said, watch any of the Marvel specials like the 75th anniversary special on ABC or the Marvel documentary just before Ultron came out, every other MCU project was talked about including AoS, the one-shots dvd extra's, etc. Barely a mention or footage shown of The Incredible Hulk, it's the red-headed stepchild of the MCU.

 

53 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

I think the lack of THE INCREDIBLE HULK on television is probably due to the idea that they don't have a Hulk sequel in the works.  No sense promoting it if they aren't getting anything out of it.

Every Marvel movie is on heavy rotation on the channel FX and has been for years, all the Iron Mans, Thors, Caps, Avengers, etc. They have marathons it seems like nearly one weekend out of every month. The Incredible Hulk is rarely, if ever, shown. Maybe its not a grand conspiracy, maybe they don't show it because it sucked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buckna said:

They have kept the movie in the MCU canon, but it's rarely ever discussed. Even your little blurb was what, 12 words total? The only other mention's have been maybe Banner's cabin in AoS or Ross showing up again in Civil War. As I said, watch any of the Marvel specials like the 75th anniversary special on ABC or the Marvel documentary just before Ultron came out, every other MCU project was talked about including AoS, the one-shots dvd extra's, etc. Barely a mention or footage shown of The Incredible Hulk, it's the red-headed stepchild of the MCU.

 

Every Marvel movie is on heavy rotation on the channel FX and has been for years, all the Iron Mans, Thors, Caps, Avengers, etc. They have marathons it seems like nearly one weekend out of every month. The Incredible Hulk is rarely, if ever, shown. Maybe its not a grand conspiracy, maybe they don't show it because it sucked?

I don't know.  It seemed a bit more standalone than the others, but they did try to tie in the Super Soldier Serum AND set the stage for The Leader. 

The Savage Hulk entity is a tough character to write I imagine.  The Avengers first movie (and Mark Ruffalo) did a great job of conveying Banner........but the Hulk is just too two dimensional.  

Maybe its time for them to move away from the Savage Hulk and more towards the Hulk/Banner hybrid that could stay in the Hulk form for an entire movie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Buckna said:

Every Marvel movie is on heavy rotation on the channel FX and has been for years, all the Iron Mans, Thors, Caps, Avengers, etc. They have marathons it seems like nearly one weekend out of every month. The Incredible Hulk is rarely, if ever, shown. Maybe its not a grand conspiracy, maybe they don't show it because it sucked?

More likely it's because Universal, not Marvel/Disney, owns distribution rights to Hulk movies, though not to the character. Marvel/Disney own the rights to the character so putting him in other movies and showing those on TV is not a problem. It only becomes problematic with The Incredible Hulk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bcdjr1 said:

More likely it's because Universal, not Marvel/Disney, owns distribution rights to Hulk movies, though not to the character. Marvel/Disney own the rights to the character so putting him in other movies and showing those on TV is not a problem. It only becomes problematic with The Incredible Hulk.

And that's why they aren't making another one. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, flysack said:

Agree on Hulk. But Iron Man/Stark was only B list if you confine the A-list to Spidey, Hulk, and Cap. Stark is pretty much the next in line, imo. 

You guys really don't like Wolverine, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Corporation changed the title to Marvel Cinematic Universe - Start Watching Loki; Please Respect Spoilers From Outside the Show

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...