Says one contributing factor is that Affleck got injured and is sidelined and they've delayed the start of production until later this year, making a July of next year release impossible. So, though production is only delayed a couple months, its caused them to delay release by 10 so it can be a May 2016 release.
2015 was too crowded anyway. That was supposed to be avengers 2, superman 2, star wars, ID4 2, Jurrassic Park 4, and many others.
Re: the idea of Ruffalo hoping for a more "eco" Hulk movie (and "eco" and "green" seems to be the words that the website reporting from Sundance reduced his comments to, I am not sure how well it fits what he actually said)--
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
Sounds eerily similar to the socially conscious warning tales found in about half of every one of the stories that appeared in Rampaging Hulk, the black & white Marvel magazine from the 70's.
If they want to do a tv series in that vein, by all means, do it. I still don't think Hulk is a leading man or big screen protagonist in the league of Superman or Thor or Captain America.
This interview is likely just an actor speaking without a script and NOT the direction Marvel Studios intends to take, unless it does so with the Hulk and Agents of SMASH cartoon.
Re: the idea of Ruffalo hoping for a more "eco" Hulk movie (and "eco" and "green" seems to be the words that the website reporting from Sundance reduced his comments to, I am not sure how well it fits what he actually said)--
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
I recall watching 'On Deadly Ground' and completely being taking out of the movie the last 5 minutes when Seagal went on his soapbox.
I recall reading DC's the Phantom series in the late 80s and being brought out of each issue with the different environmental issue he faced.
I'm not saying either of those is what Ruffalo is thinking. I'm presuming this isn't going to be a Bruce-Springstein-political-environment-rant-in-concert bit either.
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde is my favorite book. Its a story I reference, along with the Island of Dr Moreau, & Frankenstein, when I give reasons why man shouldn't play God. None of these stories felt like a lecture, but they all conveyed the point.
If its a lecture-type story I think it'll be a bore. If its an underlining theme that can be felt without overpowering the entertainment of a movie, it'll be interesting.
I do think Hulk serves best in someone else's movie rather then another solo movie.
Re: the idea of Ruffalo hoping for a more "eco" Hulk movie (and "eco" and "green" seems to be the words that the website reporting from Sundance reduced his comments to, I am not sure how well it fits what he actually said)--
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
I recall watching 'On Deadly Ground' and completely being taking out of the movie the last 5 minutes when Seagal went on his soapbox.
...
M
So you were OK with On Deadly Ground up until the last 5 minutes?
I've only found one performance of his to be particularly satisfying and that was his role in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision. He was fantastic as he was getting sucked out of that plane! OK, Under Siege was fun, but I think that was in spite of and not because of him.
Really felt like his second movie should have been called Hard to Watch.
Re: the idea of Ruffalo hoping for a more "eco" Hulk movie (and "eco" and "green" seems to be the words that the website reporting from Sundance reduced his comments to, I am not sure how well it fits what he actually said)--
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
I recall watching 'On Deadly Ground' and completely being taking out of the movie the last 5 minutes when Seagal went on his soapbox.
...
M
So you were OK with On Deadly Ground up until the last 5 minutes?
I've only found one performance of his to be particularly satisfying and that was his role in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision. He was fantastic as he was getting sucked out of that plane! OK, Under Siege was fun, but I think that was in spite of and not because of him.
Really felt like his second movie should have been called Hard to Watch.
Its not in my list of Top 500 movies, but I enjoyed it for what it was; a 90 minute action movie with a 5 minute service announcement.
If its a lecture-type story I think it'll be a bore. If its an underlining theme that can be felt without overpowering the entertainment of a movie, it'll be interesting.
I do think Hulk serves best in someone else's movie rather then another solo movie.
M
I couldn't agree more. The problem I'm having after reading that article is that this isn't the first time Ruffalo has demonstrated a frequent bent towards political activism. From vocally opposing the the Iraq war, demanding legalized gay marriage, attacking the oil extraction method known as fracking, and supporting many other progressive issues while ridiculing those that hold different positions.
It isn't that I have a problem with someone having similar or different political opinions than mine, I'm just recalling activist actors like Ed Asner, Robert Redford, Fred Thompson, Danny Glover, Rosie O'Donnell, Dennis Miller, etc. When they become so openly passionate that they begin to insult those that disagree with them, it becomes hard to separate the portrayal from the activist. I'm hoping I can get past Redford in the upcoming Cap film. My difficulty is that , whether I agree with them or not, I can no longer have my belief suspended when watching their films once they've become so well-known for their activism.
Furthermore, didn't the last Hulk film get tweaked a bit too much by a passionate, headstrong actor? I'm not sure we'd get the same results, but who knows? Besides, if I want an eco-conscious superhero, I've already got Captain Planet. If anyone insists on a Marvel character to fill that role, how about Silver Surfer, Shanna the She-Devil or DC's Green Team?
Re: the idea of Ruffalo hoping for a more "eco" Hulk movie (and "eco" and "green" seems to be the words that the website reporting from Sundance reduced his comments to, I am not sure how well it fits what he actually said)--
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
I don't think the "story" of Superman IV is the problem. Superman IV is a piece of crap. If you get some enjoyment out of it, I'm happy for you. But its a horrible, horrible production. Made in 1987 for a budget of $15 million is woefully embarressing, way way way too low. By contrast, Star Wars was made for $20 million ten years earlier and George Lucas felt like that was way too low (i've seen him say in interviews that the big time movies were 40 or 50 million dollars). Superman: The Movie had a budget of $55 million, and Superman II was $54 million. Now, they were largely shot together, so I don't know how much of part 1's budget was mixed into part 2 or if the two of them cost $99 million together, but Superman III cost $39 million.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, I don't think the story was the main problem, it was a cheaply made with terrible choices and a director who has only directed cheap crap.
@Planeis ? I am not sure how you got that from what I said, just that the preachy, polemic nature if it (and of a Supernan, Miracleman- like, telling the nations of the world what to do) felt out of character to a lot of people. I was bringing up that problem apropos of what Matt was talking about. Not to argue what the main problem was. And never said I enjoyed it. Heck, I barely remember it. Though I have heard a lot of people hate on it since.
@Planeis ? I am not sure how you got that from what I said, just that the preachy, polemic nature if it (and of a Supernan, Miracleman- like, telling the nations of the world what to do) felt out of character to a lot of people. I was bringing up that problem apropos of what Matt was talking about. Not to argue what the main problem was. And never said I enjoyed it. Heck, I barely remember it. Though I have heard a lot of people hate on it since.
And I was just making a joke about the situation & QfP movie. I recall Reeve wanted to do a more environmentally minded Superman movie. I didn't even realize that was part of the theme until I heard the backstory.
Superman IV is a complete mess. Half of the reason was the nuclear warning story was co-written by Reeves and the other is it lacked producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind, instead putting the dying franchise in the hands of a new production company, Golan & Globus who slashed the budget.
The sets in Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space were more convincing than the moon set at the end of Superman IV. Things don’t get much better when Reeve and Pillow (Nuclear Man) are asked to play around with big Styrofoam props that looked like they were spray painted in the producer’s basement. If the story had been good, and the villain weren't ridiculously lame, perhaps the weak budget could've been overcome. All the best cast members were back and Reeve gave a great performance.
However, the relentless preaching about world peace and nuclear weapons that practically makes you want to tear your hair out really sinks it. You could fill a book with everything wrong with Superman IV. The actors seem thrilled to be reunited but every other aspect of the film is just awful. It's no wonder that this film killed the Superman franchise and left it shelved for almost twenty years.
@Planeis ? I am not sure how you got that from what I said, just that the preachy, polemic nature if it (and of a Supernan, Miracleman- like, telling the nations of the world what to do) felt out of character to a lot of people. I was bringing up that problem apropos of what Matt was talking about. Not to argue what the main problem was. And never said I enjoyed it. Heck, I barely remember it. Though I have heard a lot of people hate on it since.
I know, I wasn't trying to say you did like it. When I said "if you get some form of enjoyment out of it" I meant a sort of general "you" as in, if anyone likes it, good, but... But I think the preachy, polemic nature of it, even including the plot of him destroying the worlds nukes, I think that all would have gone down much much better if it wasn't presented in such a horribly cheap fashion.
@Planeis ? I am not sure how you got that from what I said, just that the preachy, polemic nature if it (and of a Supernan, Miracleman- like, telling the nations of the world what to do) felt out of character to a lot of people. I was bringing up that problem apropos of what Matt was talking about. Not to argue what the main problem was. And never said I enjoyed it. Heck, I barely remember it. Though I have heard a lot of people hate on it since.
I know, I wasn't trying to say you did like it. When I said "if you get some form of enjoyment out of it" I meant a sort of general "you" as in, if anyone likes it, good, but... But I think the preachy, polemic nature of it, even including the plot of him destroying the worlds nukes, I think that all would have gone down much much better if it wasn't presented in such a horribly cheap fashion.
I see what you mean. Probably especially if so etching sets out to be a polemic it has to work (and likely spend) extra hard to win over an audience, and it sounds like that one definitely didn't.
Also, try reading some of the comments section. Apparently, Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was THAT successful because a lot of non-comic book readers went to see the movies. Who wants that?!
Supposedly, Eisenberg's Luthor will be into tattoos big time, and have a sleeve of the Metropolis skyline down his right arm. He also became a self-made billionaire at 18, and is the CEO of Lexcorp. Despite currently being a ruthless businessman and complete tech genius, he's also got street smarts. At the age of 14 Lex was on the streets and it wasn't long before he was initiated into a street gang. Within a year, he was their boss. His resolve is his main weapon, and alongside being incredibly intelligent he's also got where he is thanks to his own hard work.
Supposedly, Eisenberg's Luthor will be into tattoos big time, and have a sleeve of the Metropolis skyline down his right arm. He also became a self-made billionaire at 18, and is the CEO of Lexcorp. Despite currently being a ruthless businessman and complete tech genius, he's also got street smarts. At the age of 14 Lex was on the streets and it wasn't long before he was initiated into a street gang. Within a year, he was their boss. His resolve is his main weapon, and alongside being incredibly intelligent he's also got where he is thanks to his own hard work.
More at the link above.
I don't believe any rumors about this movie. Have any of them turned out right? All of the rumors about Batman and his casting were wrong, all the Wonder Woman speculation was wrong, all the Lex speculation that I heard was wrong.
These aren't rumors, they're lies. A rumor is an unverified story. I don't believe any of these articles actually have sources that are saying this. I think they are just making stuff up.
The movie is over two years away. Filming hasn't started yet, except for second unit filming of a college football game. There is no reason to take any rumor even remotely seriously until filming is well underway.
Comments
Says one contributing factor is that Affleck got injured and is sidelined and they've delayed the start of production until later this year, making a July of next year release impossible. So, though production is only delayed a couple months, its caused them to delay release by 10 so it can be a May 2016 release.
2015 was too crowded anyway. That was supposed to be avengers 2, superman 2, star wars, ID4 2, Jurrassic Park 4, and many others.
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/mark-ruffalo-would-like-to-see-an-eco-hulk-movie
M
Superman IV: Quest for Peace felt like it was pushing to be a polemic, and reaching outside of what people expected or wanted for a Superman movie.
By contrast, the potential dangers of science or reckless progress (even specifically new kinds of energy) is actually built into the idea of The Hulk from the very first time he appeared in the comics. Now, of course, if the polemic nature of a Hulk movie got in the way of making a good Hulk movie, then that would be a crap movie. But the quotes from Ruffalo are actually about exactly NOT doing that. Rather, it sounds to me like one of the things that is interesting to him to do with the Hulk is actually something the original creators of the Hulk were doing.
Remember- unlike Superman, Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man, etc.- the main inspiration for the Hulk were not prior heroes. Lee sites Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein. Monsters created, or unleashed within, by science. So as lame as Totalfilm.com's choice of words of "an eco Hulk" sound, the actual idea of using the Hulk to talk about the effects of science and industry on the world, thematically, is actually right there in the original DNA.
If they want to do a tv series in that vein, by all means, do it. I still don't think Hulk is a leading man or big screen protagonist in the league of Superman or Thor or Captain America.
This interview is likely just an actor speaking without a script and NOT the direction Marvel Studios intends to take, unless it does so with the Hulk and Agents of SMASH cartoon.
I recall reading DC's the Phantom series in the late 80s and being brought out of each issue with the different environmental issue he faced.
I'm not saying either of those is what Ruffalo is thinking. I'm presuming this isn't going to be a Bruce-Springstein-political-environment-rant-in-concert bit either.
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde is my favorite book. Its a story I reference, along with the Island of Dr Moreau, & Frankenstein, when I give reasons why man shouldn't play God. None of these stories felt like a lecture, but they all conveyed the point.
If its a lecture-type story I think it'll be a bore. If its an underlining theme that can be felt without overpowering the entertainment of a movie, it'll be interesting.
I do think Hulk serves best in someone else's movie rather then another solo movie.
M
I've only found one performance of his to be particularly satisfying and that was his role in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision. He was fantastic as he was getting sucked out of that plane! OK, Under Siege was fun, but I think that was in spite of and not because of him.
Really felt like his second movie should have been called Hard to Watch.
M
It isn't that I have a problem with someone having similar or different political opinions than mine, I'm just recalling activist actors like Ed Asner, Robert Redford, Fred Thompson, Danny Glover, Rosie O'Donnell, Dennis Miller, etc. When they become so openly passionate that they begin to insult those that disagree with them, it becomes hard to separate the portrayal from the activist. I'm hoping I can get past Redford in the upcoming Cap film. My difficulty is that , whether I agree with them or not, I can no longer have my belief suspended when watching their films once they've become so well-known for their activism.
Furthermore, didn't the last Hulk film get tweaked a bit too much by a passionate, headstrong actor? I'm not sure we'd get the same results, but who knows? Besides, if I want an eco-conscious superhero, I've already got Captain Planet. If anyone insists on a Marvel character to fill that role, how about Silver Surfer, Shanna the She-Devil or DC's Green Team?
Hulk, smash!
Anyway, what I'm saying is, I don't think the story was the main problem, it was a cheaply made with terrible choices and a director who has only directed cheap crap.
M
The sets in Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space were more convincing than the moon set at the end of Superman IV. Things don’t get much better when Reeve and Pillow (Nuclear Man) are asked to play around with big Styrofoam props that looked like they were spray painted in the producer’s basement. If the story had been good, and the villain weren't ridiculously lame, perhaps the weak budget could've been overcome. All the best cast members were back and Reeve gave a great performance.
However, the relentless preaching about world peace and nuclear weapons that practically makes you want to tear your hair out really sinks it. You could fill a book with everything wrong with Superman IV. The actors seem thrilled to be reunited but every other aspect of the film is just awful. It's no wonder that this film killed the Superman franchise and left it shelved for almost twenty years.
I understand that a fan-edit exists that blends the best of Superman III and Superman IV exists and is quite enjoyable. Anyone seen it?
http://batman-news.com/2014/01/23/ben-affleck-wear-blue-grey-batsuit-batman-vs-superman/
Also, try reading some of the comments section. Apparently, Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was THAT successful because a lot of non-comic book readers went to see the movies. Who wants that?!
M
http://batman-news.com/2014/01/27/michael-keaton-difficulties-batsuit-1989-video/
M
Potential spoiler? More at the link above.
I don't believe any rumors about this movie. Have any of them turned out right? All of the rumors about Batman and his casting were wrong, all the Wonder Woman speculation was wrong, all the Lex speculation that I heard was wrong.
These aren't rumors, they're lies. A rumor is an unverified story. I don't believe any of these articles actually have sources that are saying this. I think they are just making stuff up.
The movie is over two years away. Filming hasn't started yet, except for second unit filming of a college football game. There is no reason to take any rumor even remotely seriously until filming is well underway.