Re-watching the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe


log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
And to be honest I thought Ang Lee's Hulk is a bit underrated and a better movie overall, but perhaps not well received because of how dark it was.

I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was. I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.

And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb. :p
 

Crothian

First Post
But for the MCU?

While by themselves they are OK, but as a full over-lining story-arc (yay I know it all leads up to the Infinity Wars), the movies are too... disconnected for my liking to view as a marathon.

Going into Avengers 2 some movie theaters across the US did this. I think they all sold out so there were plenty of people that would do this. The only problem for me is it would be it is tough to do a 30 or so hour movie marathon. That would have been something I would enjoy 20 years ago.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was. I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.

And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb. :p

I'll agree with that. The Hulk should have been presented as a horror/thriller movie, a dark drama in the vein of its literary predecessors.

But Ang Lee thought he was making a Superhero movie. I think its unfortunate that the Hulk was one of the forerunners of the Cinematic Marvelverse, before that had really got everything pinned down and were happy doing each movie as a different genre peice within the unifying setting.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The Hulk should have been presented as a horror/thriller movie, a dark drama in the vein of its literary predecessors.

That could be done, yes - The Hulk as a kind of modern Frankenstein. However, going that route would have set the Hulk up to be in thematic conflict with the rest of the MCU, making working him into the Avengers extremely difficult.

But Ang Lee thought he was making a Superhero movie.

I don't think that's entirely true. I think he was trying to blend genres, and just didn't succeed as well as he'd hoped. Sometimes, when you set yourself a difficult challenge, you don't quite make it.
 

MarkB

Legend
It's not even as simple as that: for Avengers 2, Whedon also decided to ignore Iron Man 3 - note that War Machine appears instead of the Iron Patriot. Plus there's the small matter of Tony deciding to blow up all his suits at the end of IM3...

Yeah, there did feel like a big disconnect between the ending of Iron Man 3 and the Tony we see in Avengers 2. The man who decided to get rid of all his Iron Man suits and let go of his defend-the-world paranoia in favour of concentrating upon his relationship with Pepper is not the man who created an army of robotic peacekeepers and was so obsessed with trying to save the world that he inadvertently built the next Big Threat himself.

But then, this is pretty much the way it is in the comics, both DC and Marvel - the ensemble-character titles ignore the character development occurring in the single-hero titles if it happens to be inconvenient to them.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was. I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.

And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb. :p

I can't disagree with anything you say here, and just to be clear I didn't love it, although think it was better than the Norton one. I agree it was problematic and that I mis-spoke about the darkness being the factor that it was poorly received. I think it was too cerebral and psychological, not enough smashing. But I liked some of what Lee did - like the turning pages, for instance. And of course Sam Elliott. I love William Hurt, but Elliott was a better Thunderbolt imo. But yeah, it was a very flawed work, but interesting nonetheless.
 

delericho

Legend
That could be done, yes - The Hulk as a kind of modern Frankenstein.

Jekyll & Hyde, surely?

However, going that route would have set the Hulk up to be in thematic conflict with the rest of the MCU, making working him into the Avengers extremely difficult.

Well, they did it in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which...

Oh. I see your point.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Jekyll & Hyde, surely?.

The Hulks a mixture of Jekyll and Frankenstein (and I was thinking Wolfman too), Banner is Dr Jekyll struggling to control the darkside of himself but the Hulk as a tragic monster is Frankenstein. Frankensteins Monster wasn't bad just driven by revenge and Hulk doesn't want to hurt people, just defend himself whilst driven by rage (that animalistic rage is the Wolfman, Frankensteins Monster was cold and calculated).

I think Ultron touches on the dual nature of Hulk. I also think it could have worked in a stand alone movie, within the MCU but understandably 'different'. The fight across the desert part was good, as were the sonic canons from the second movie but getting a good climax without an Abomination fight might have been difficult.
Maybe they could have done something like the Trial of the Hulk instead (including the Daredevil crossover) :)
 

Remove ads

Top