Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Marsden]

It makes some sense, if Namor was included in Universal's Hulk package. And I think Universal has the rights to all distribution of Hulk movies, like Paramount did all other MCU movies before Disney bought them. Remember all other Phase 1 movies were Paramount except Hulk and Avengers because Avengers was the first Disney.

I think what that terrible (IMO) Hulk and the ok but not great Incredible Hulk did wrong that Avengers did so well is Hulk had a chance to really Hulk out like we want against targets we wouldn't mind him doing so. Speaking for myself, I really wouldn't like to see the Hulk kill or cripple a whole bunch of soldiers, but that's primarily who he was fighting in much of the first two movies. Yes, he later fought other stuff, but he still seemed not to be really free to do it, trying to stop Abomination. In Avengers, he fought Thor, which everybody always likes, it's one of the biggest grudge matches in the comics excepting maybe Hulk vs. Thing, and then he got to beat the shit out of Loki and a bunch of crappy aliens that no one felt bad about him pounding.

Plus, the Hulk looked better in Avengers, they really got the right look, he looked to skinny in TIH and that first one, he looked too much like Shrek, not a good thing.

Also, just like a lot of other characters, he's better to be part of a group and not hang the whole movie on him.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I think that part of what made Hulk work so well in The Avengers was that having all those other superheroes gave them the freedom to tease out Banner becoming the Hulk for half the film without boring the audience.

 

[Neroon]

they are the only remnants of SHIELD

Infraction for spamming. Comments to PM

 

[bbjeg]

Regarding Hulk not getting solo movies,Isn't the Incredible Hulk (2008) Marvel studios production and hence MCU canon? Granted Hulk/Banner look different, but they did tag Tony Stark towards the end chatting with Ross, as well as the Super soldier serum and the Stark industries logo.

It is part of the canon of Marvel movies in continuity with all the other films. Banner was merely recast, same as Rhodes...

The Incredible Hulk movie is canon and characters were recasted but (I think) Universal owns the Hulk movie rights, similar to how Sony owns Spiderman and Fox with X-Men and FF. Tony's appearance in Hulk was Marvel's lease to Universal and later Hulk appearances in Marvel movies are under a Universal lease, similar to what they are about to do with Spiderman.

 

[Ethros]

I'd love to see William Hurt return as General Ross in some form or another, in some movie or another (doesn't necessarily have to be a Hulk movie) maybe even leading to a Red Hulk plotline.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Regarding Hulk not getting solo movies,Isn't the Incredible Hulk (2008) Marvel studios production and hence MCU canon? Granted Hulk/Banner look different, but they did tag Tony Stark towards the end chatting with Ross, as well as the Super soldier serum and the Stark industries logo.

It is part of the canon of Marvel movies in continuity with all the other films. Banner was merely recast, same as Rhodes...

The Incredible Hulk movie is canon and characters were recasted but (I think) Universal owns the Hulk movie rights, similar to how Sony owns Spiderman and Fox with X-Men and FF. Tony's appearance in Hulk was Marvel's lease to Universal and later Hulk appearances in Marvel movies are under a Universal lease, similar to what they are about to do with Spiderman.

Well, no. All reports say that Universal only owns Hulk's distribution rights, not their entire rights. So that alone makes it different from Sony's situation.

It's also clearly different because Marvel Studios produced an Incredible Hulk film. The upcoming Spider-Man movie is still a Sony produced film, it's just being produced by Kevin Feige. It is not a Marvel Studios film. Marvel Studios has the right to use Spider-Man now, but does not have the right to produce Spider-Man films.

 

[Doctorwhovian]

The IH movie, in addition to having Ross and Blonsky, also teased Doc Samson (Ty Burrell's character although I think some of his scenes-such as his counseling of Bruce seen in the trailer-were cut back) and the Leader.

The MCU's version of Talbot-a major Hulk supporting character in the 60s, 70s and early 80s-has also been in the Agents of Shield
series.

 

[bbjeg]

It is part of the canon of Marvel movies in continuity with all the other films. Banner was merely recast, same as Rhodes...

The Incredible Hulk movie is canon and characters were recasted but (I think) Universal owns the Hulk movie rights, similar to how Sony owns Spiderman and Fox with X-Men and FF. Tony's appearance in Hulk was Marvel's lease to Universal and later Hulk appearances in Marvel movies are under a Universal lease, similar to what they are about to do with Spiderman.

Well, no. All reports say that Universal only owns Hulk's distribution rights, not their entire rights. So that alone makes it different from Sony's situation.

I said similar, not the same.

...It's also clearly different because Marvel Studios produced an Incredible Hulk film...

Well, Universal made that not so successful/non-canon Hulk movie, so it's still similar (though different).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They made the movie, then they sold their rights back, which was my point.

 

[bbjeg]

^It's still similar. If the Spidey movies were more of a success, Sony may have not done their deal with Marvel Studios.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Right. But my point, and this is the biggest difference between Sony and Universal, is that Sony, at any point, can make a Spider-Man movie without any approval or input from Marvel. Right now, they have a joint production of one movie with Marvel (technically, with Kevin Feige but that's assumed to be with Marvel). After that, all Spider-Man movies are produced by Sony. In addition, any side-movies, such as Sinister Six, Venom, Black Cat, or Aunt May Super Spy, are all exclusively produced by Sony (and can include Spider-Man if they want them to). The Incredible Hulk and any future Hulk movie is not a joint production, it is done exclusively by Marvel. It's just distributed by Universal. Universal cannot make a Hulk movie. Marvel can make one if they wanted to even without Universal's permission, it just can't be released without their permission so that would be pretty stupid.

 

[Reverend]

^From the reports I've been reading, after the hack Sony corporate has Sony Pictures on a very short leash regarding the Spider-Man IP and they've supposedly been told to defer to Marvel on creative matters.

So yeah, in theory they *can* make a Spider-Man movie without Marvel's involvement, but unless they're looking to get dismantled and/or sold off to Disney, they probably won't.

 

[JD]

It is part of the canon of Marvel movies in continuity with all the other films. Banner was merely recast, same as Rhodes...

The Incredible Hulk movie is canon and characters were recasted but (I think) Universal owns the Hulk movie rights, similar to how Sony owns Spiderman and Fox with X-Men and FF. Tony's appearance in Hulk was Marvel's lease to Universal and later Hulk appearances in Marvel movies are under a Universal lease, similar to what they are about to do with Spiderman.

Well, no. All reports say that Universal only owns Hulk's distribution rights, not their entire rights. So that alone makes it different from Sony's situation.

It's also clearly different because Marvel Studios produced an Incredible Hulk film. The upcoming Spider-Man movie is still a Sony produced film, it's just being produced by Kevin Feige. It is not a Marvel Studios film. Marvel Studios has the right to use Spider-Man now, but does not have the right to produce Spider-Man films.

Oh, I thought it was going to be an equal co-production. I knew Sony still held the rights and had final say, but I thought they were at least going to be released under both Sony and Marvel's names.

 

[theenglish]

^It's still similar. If the Spidey movies were more of a success, Sony may have not done their deal with Marvel Studios.

Sony shot themselves with their reboot of the character. They had one film that underperformed because of studio interference (wanting Venom) and shut the door on Raimi. He could have made a few more movies. Spider-Man could easily have become the James Bond of super-hero movies.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I will literally Laugh Out Loud if Marvel's Spider-Man film ends up making less than TASM2 or TASM.

IMO Sony gave up too soon on TASM series. They had one movie that underperformed and through in the towel. Rather than hunker down and work out a new direction.

 

[theenglish]

I will literally Laugh Out Loud if Marvel's Spider-Man film ends up making less than TASM2 or TASM.

IMO Sony gave up too soon on TASM series. They had one movie that underperformed and through in the towel. Rather than hunker down and work out a new direction.

Yes, they gave up too early TWICE in less than ten years.

 

[Corran Horn]

I will literally Laugh Out Loud if Marvel's Spider-Man film ends up making less than TASM2 or TASM.

As it will be part of the MCU and likely have an MCU character or two that have appeared in other MCU movies or TV shows I don't think there's much chance of it making less than either of those 2 films.

 

[Turtletrekker]

True story-- Some friends of mine and I were sitting together talking about the Sony/Marvel/Spider-Man deal. None of us, comic book geeks all, NONE of us had seen ASM2 in the theater. None of us had really cared for the direction of the first one (despite acknowledging some real, mostly squanderd, potential) and the poor word of mouth for the sequel sealed the deal.

And yet ALL of us were totally excited to see a Spider-Man movie in the MCU. That's four more ticket sales right there. If that is a microcosm of conversation around geek tables across America, then the next Spider-Man movie can't help but do better.

ETA: @ theenglish-- While I agree that Sony gave up too early on McGuire, Dunst and Raimi, the sad truth is, they really did need to cut their perceived losses with the Webb/Garfield series.

 

[Anwar]

What losses? The movie didn't lose any money.

 

[theenglish]

ETA: @ theenglish-- While I agree that Sony gave up too early on McGuire, Dunst and Raimi, the sad truth is, they really did need to cut their perceived losses with the Webb/Garfield series.

Garfield got a raw deal out of it. Similar to the trend of comics restarting at #1 every time a creative team changes, movies think they need to "reboot" every time there is a similar change.

The Amazing Spider-Man could easily have been made to fit with the continuity of the first three movies. I haven't seen ASM2 so I can't say anything about that.