Joss Whedon on "The Avengers 2" and New "Hulk" Film

Not much info there. Next.....

Just Make Hulk a Semi-Horror movie. Its really soooooo simple.

Whedon makes a valid point...the Hulk is one of those complex characters that can be a hero or villain (antihero?)

Hulk doesn't follow the regular standard plot...it has been a tough attempts.

Hulk is best done in small doses.

This explains WHY exactly The Avengers 2 will be crap and should only be restricted to an event.
"Nothing bigger, but better." See, that means that the film will be boring.
"Half of Hulk is a superhero, half is a werewolf." That just means that Joss will butcher the character by delving into his "PSYCHIE" and trying to give him "DEPTH".


The Avengers 2 should be released sometime in 2022. At least make them a 10 year anniversary since the first came out as apposed to franchising the entire f*cking Turkey and turning it into pure crap.

The Hulk can be made into not only a great comic book adaption but also a great film. The thing is these Hollywood writers and directors don't give a sh*t about doing anything right but people always blame the character itself instead.

the avengers - most overrated movie of 2012

"I can't do any bigger, so I'm trying to do better."

Yeah, you do that ...

@Rocksteddy
Whedon has constantly said that a sequel should be quieter and more personal. And he's right. Thats one of the reasons Nolan's final Batman film was weak. It tried to hat to go big and epic. So I agree with Joss, and trust him with what he's doing.

They need to realize that some comics weren't meant to become live action.

@Avirex: Well said. I totally agree. I love the Norton Hulk film. So much can be done with a boiling kettle type character like Hulk. Suspenseful close calls, over the top boil overs, intense science/medical drama, the beast within, etc. Hulk deserves another chance.

BULLsh*t
the series was on for four years followed by a few tv movies
The 70s/80s had no problem
Now you wanna blame The Hulk?

My two-cents on this is that they need to make a Planet Hulk movie. At the end of Avengers, the super heros should shoot Hulk into space to try and save humanity from his destructive ways...even after he helps save Earth. Then release a Planet Hulk trilogy that basically follows the Planet Hulk comic series and bada-bing bada-smash...you got a successful Hulk series.

@kate....how was it over rated?

Any and all Hulk films would be FINE if they would only do more of a character study on Banner instead of making the movie a constant and contrived setup for CGI action Hulk set pieces.

Focus on the HUMANITY of Bruce/David Banner.

The original hulk series was great.

And I'm sorry, but Whedon's comments on Hulk only reinforce what I've always suspected: Whedon is an over-rated fool.

"Whedon makes a valid point...the Hulk is one of those complex characters that can be a hero or villain (antihero?)"

You mean like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Yeah, that book was an enormous literary flop, wasn't it?

It's the EXECUTION and ATTITUDE, people, not the source material. If millions and millions of women will line up on sidewalks for days to buy tickets to see gay sparking vampires but an incredible character like the Hulk can get a truly popular and proper, someone is doing something very wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Case_of_Dr_Jekyll_and_Mr_Hyde#Reception

can't.

Well said everyone.

I mean, for starters they f*cked up his origin which is what makes you care for his character in the first place. He runs into an open gamma bomb testing zone to save someone regardless of the danger. Yet he's also partially responsible for that bomb. It sets up a recurring theme, he saves people but also causes destruction. Plus the whole bomb thing serves as commentary on the issue of using dangerous technology like this. That's already more depth than they've ever given him on film and it's before he even becomes Hulk.

On a side, I wish they would use animatronics and CGI together for the Hulk so it feels like he actually has a physical presence in the film instead of just a green computer graphic jumping around.

Completely agree, Avirex. ^

"I mean, for starters they f*cked up his origin which is what makes you care for his character in the first place. He runs into an open gamma bomb testing zone to save someone regardless of the danger. Yet he's also partially responsible for that bomb. It sets up a recurring theme, he saves people but also causes destruction. Plus the whole bomb thing serves as commentary on the issue of using dangerous technology like this."

Avirex, when you actually think about his origins, it does sound incredibly stupid, that a bomb designed to be more powerful than the atom bomb, could give Bruce Banner super powers. The flash fire alone would have incinerated him.

^^Well, except for the genetic factor Banner possessed which allowed him to absorb the gamma rays. Not sure about the flash fire, to be honest, as their isn't any such gamma bomb in existence. Closes would be a supernova explosion, and would depend on distance from the center of the explosion.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Gamma_Bomb

@Dynamite

If all comic books were realistically based on pre-established events and science they wouldn't be comic books. They would be closer to Tom Clancy novels or something. On the surface we can say a billionaire running around rooftops and fighting a guy with make-up is 'incredibly stupid' as well. As long as the material within the comic is realistic to it's own established universe its plausible. Its all about the execution of those elements as they happen in the story. If its done horribly any concept can be made to look ridiculous. When its done well however (ie Dark Knight) these things don't seem so far fetched within the character's universe. Add to that what Mink said, its things that don't necessarily exist and thus liable to slightly different mechanics or at least enough to be accepted at face value.

bring leader into the mix or she hulk.

Still love norton in hulk