The Incredible Hulk

Chris Orr is very right about this utterly okay film:

In any case, at the screening I attended, the loudest cheers of the night by far were for an end-of-the-film cameo by Robert Downey, Jr., as Tony Stark that closely parallels the post-credit Nick Fury scene in Iron Man. (Again, the purpose is twofold: To begin knitting Marvel's comic universe together, and to build buzz for The Avengers.) It was an odd moment, at once elating and deflating. For fans of the superhero genre--and of special-effect action movies in general--The Incredible Hulk is a perfectly solid addition to the canon. But its primary aftertaste is eager anticipation for Iron Man 2.

That said, I do think it's neat that as part of the Marvel Studios venture they seem eager to stitch together a semi-coherent Marvel Studios continuity to sit along side the "regular" and "ultimate" continuities of the books. It's always struck me as a weakness of the various DC or Marvel based films that they rip their characters out of the broader universes in which they've been embedded in their "native" medium.

Comments

I dunno. Another way of looking at that is that a weakness of the comics is that characters with some small degree of verisimilitude, like Batman, get stuck in the same universe as patently ridiculous characters like Superman.

Posted by Ned | June 14, 2008 3:48 PM

My fear is that Marvel will decide to through in some F4 appearances. I could take Chikilis' Thing. After that I'd feel rather ill.

Posted by Rob | June 14, 2008 3:53 PM

It's hard to imagine Marvel screwing up a potentially good franchise by throwing in one that is terrible like the F4. Hell, if they do that they might as well have Daredevil make an appearance in the next Spidey movie.

Posted by lfv | June 14, 2008 3:56 PM

Alot of the problems of having the comic book characters in isolation has to do with which studio gets which rights. If Universal has the rights to one superhero and Warner gets another, getting them together is not going to happen. This current trend was a conscious effort on Marvel's part to rectify that if what I've heard is true.

Posted by zed | June 14, 2008 3:57 PM

It's always struck me as a weakness of the various DC or Marvel based films that they rip their characters out of the broader universes in which they've been embedded in their "native" medium.

This seems very wrong to me. One of the greatest weaknesses of the Marvel/DC style of storytelling is that you end up with a vastly improbable clash of stylistic elements: relatively down-to-earth crime stories in "Daredevil" taking next to the cloak-and-dagger spy stories of "SHIELD" and the far-flung science-fantasy of "Fantastic Four." When I'm reading a Nick Fury story, do I really want to have to think about the fact that his organization's commitment to government regulation of superheroes logically puts him in the same camp as the people building anti-mutant Sentinel robots over in the X-Men books, thus making him an X-Men villain? Every time Magneto shows up to terrorize New York, am I supposed to wonder why the Fantastic Four and the Avengers aren't showing up to stop him? "Shared universes" start to feel clunky and unmanageable fairly quickly. They also act as unnecessary restraints on storytelling. If it's all one big world, then there can never be any drastic changes to that world coming out of any superhero's story. It's a stultifying a deadening way to approach narrative.

Posted by Christmas | June 14, 2008 3:59 PM

A problem akin to mis-matched shoe laces. Comic book characters.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 14, 2008 4:01 PM

zed--

That really isn't a problem. Time Warner owns DC.

Posted by Rob | June 14, 2008 4:06 PM

It's always struck me as a weakness of the various DC or Marvel based films that they rip their characters out of the broader universes in which they've been embedded in their "native" medium.

I don't think "weakness" is the word exactly. Its really more an issue with the nature of storytelling being necessarily different in the two genres. Marvel produces 100s of comics a year but maybe two movies. Its not really feasible in the film context to feature a whole bunch of peripheral characters, with whom most of the audience will have almost no familiarity, making appearances in a context where it is already quite difficult to keep the running time under two hours.

In the comics, it is part of the narrative that the featured superhero lives in a world of other superheros where there is a shared history. The stories are informed by those histories, and most of the readers of the story will be, at the very least, aware of those histories. I don't see how thats possible in even a best case scenario for movies. Its just a different beast.

Posted by brent | June 14, 2008 4:10 PM

You mean I should have stayed through the "Iron Man" credits?

Posted by Woody Bombay | June 14, 2008 4:12 PM

" Its not really feasible in the film context to feature a whole bunch of peripheral characters, with whom most of the audience will have almost no familiarity, making appearances in a context where it is already quite difficult to keep the running time under two hours."

It really depends on how much of a role they play in the film. Spider-Man 3 arguably used too many prominent characters, as did X3.

Iron Man 2 could include a scene where Tony Stark meets a scientist named Henry Pym, who works on miniaturization technology that figures somehow in the film. That'd set up Pym to appear as Ant-Man or Giant-Man or whatever in the Avengers flick, but in the context of Iron Man 2, you wouldn't need to know anything but that he's a scientist.

The animated Justice League: New Frontier did this with the DC's Atom. The Atom didn't appear, but Ray Palmer appeared as a scientist with a miniaturization ray.

I just hope Marvel has more cohones in its movies, than the Fantastic 4 producers had, and don't chicken out in the same way. I want Galactus as a giant guy in purple armor. I want MODOK as a giant head on a tiny body riding a levitating chair.

If the Lord of the Rings movies were made by the F4 people, the Ents would have been guys wearing a bunch of leaves, and the elephants would have been normal-sized.

Posted by Jon H | June 14, 2008 4:37 PM

FYI:

During the opening credits of The Incredible Hulk (2008), Nick Fury's name appears briefly on a government document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fury

Posted by jackifus | June 14, 2008 4:51 PM

It really depends on how much of a role they play in the film... Iron Man 2 could include a scene where Tony Stark meets a scientist named Henry Pym, who works on miniaturization technology that figures somehow in the film.

Well I think some of this sort of thing has gone on for awhile in superhero movies, but I think the sort of continuity that Matt is talking about is something more along the lines of what happens in the comics. For instance, although he doesn't directly appear in most Iron Man comics, Spiderman, the fact that Spiderman exists and the things he has done are an important part of the stories that get told in Iron Man comics. Their shared reality, the things that happen to them and say, the Hulk, are meaningful elements in their continuing stories. That, I don't think, is really possible in the cinematic context.

Posted by brent | June 14, 2008 5:37 PM

I totally agree. The biggest hurdle is the cheese factor - shoehorning in a character, like Daredevil in the terrible death of the Hulk tv movie, can backfire terribly. But if you do it intelligently, it makes the experience that much more fun.

I always thought it would be cool for a Daredevil movie to a) not suck b) not feature Ben Affleck (Matt Damon would have been a perfect Daredevil) and c) feature a scene where Daredevil is on patrol and sees Spider-Man casually webslinging around New York. I think that's all it can take. Or if the character picks up a newspaper and it has an article on the menace of spider-man, or new technologies from Stark Industries, or a tabloid that spreads rumors of a Skrull menace. A Daredevil vs. Punisher movie could also work, if done well.

X-Men sort of started doing this with X-Men 2, where you see an interview with Hank McCoy (Beast), and a computer database of mutants that had Remy Lebeau (Gambit) in it.

I see no reason why small bits of continuity can work, like Captain America's shield in the background in Iron Man.

Posted by JoePo | June 14, 2008 6:54 PM

Myself, I'm a continuity geek. I actively enjoy the construction of superheroic mythology, in a way that is deeply enhanced by having a shared universe for the characters to inhabit.

It's not for everyone, and it is occasionally to the detriment of some stories that would function better if the universe conformed more strictly to their genre boundaries. It's definitely an issue of personal taste and preference-- but it is a valid taste, and one that I happen to like.

Obviously, the limited number of movies this year means we'll never have, and probably never should have a "Crisis on Infinite Earths" style crossover -- twelve part mega-events with everyone and their brother from fifty years of comics all running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Movies will remain, as they ought, largely self-contained.

But the occasional cameo, and a little bit of crossover, leading into team films? That's pretty cool.

Certainly sold me on giving Hulk a try after the disastrous Ang Lee version.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 14, 2008 6:54 PM

" feature a scene where Daredevil is on patrol and sees Spider-Man casually webslinging around New York."

Um, Daredevil is blind.

Posted by Jon H | June 14, 2008 7:00 PM

While this will continue to be a source of speculation and debate among fanboys in the long run, I suspect that this argument will be moot for several months begin on July 19. This is all - even Iron Man - just warm-up for that.

Posted by Shawn | June 14, 2008 7:01 PM

*ahem* I meant July 18.

Posted by Shawn | June 14, 2008 7:05 PM

I agree with Ned--the idea of a Marvel Universe which all the characters inhabit is kind of cool at first blush but in general it makes things more difficult to swallow. Comics book stories are mostly about a single hero or group, with opponents who last for a few issues at most. The continuous universe is mostly a source of cameos. For the most part, Marvel doesn't try to deal with the implications of a world which is basically our world except that it has dozens of super-heroes running around in it.

The movies are basically like this. When Bruce Banner says he has a really serious problem, no one says, "Are you a mutant?" They act as though no one's ever heard of people mutating and acquiring super powers. But in the "Marvel Universe" it's a pretty common thing.

Posted by Colatina | June 14, 2008 7:52 PM

"The movies are basically like this. When Bruce Banner says he has a really serious problem, no one says, "Are you a mutant?" They act as though no one's ever heard of people mutating and acquiring super powers. "

The Nick Fury cameo at the end of Iron Man suggests that it isn't common knowledge, even to someone like Tony Stark.

This isn't exactly consistent with the X-Men films, but those weren't produced by Marvel, so they're probably considered to be outside of the Marvel-produced film universe.

Posted by Jon H | June 14, 2008 8:08 PM

Shawn, Hellboy II opens July 11, not July 18.

Posted by Walt | June 14, 2008 11:37 PM

Forget Marvel. How the hell is the non-stop sociopathy of Wanted going to work on the big screen?

Posted by Antid Oto | June 15, 2008 12:28 AM

Woody Bombay wrote: "You mean I should have stayed through the 'Iron Man' credits?"

Yes. You should always stay until the end of the credits.

Posted by Jack | June 15, 2008 12:58 AM

Angelina Jolie is in "Wanted".

More gun training! She could take on an entire SEAL Team by herself at this point...

I gotta see this movie.

The character I want to see Marvel do is Doctor Doom - and far better than the idiots who did the Fantastic Four movie version. A movie built around the "Doom 2099" series - but maybe set closer to this end of the century - would be killer political commentary. No superheroes involved at all, except maybe the fake Captain America from the series and some references to Doom's historical conflicts with the FF so people get an idea who the character really is. Hugo Weaving could portray Doom, similar to how he did "V".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 15, 2008 6:36 AM

Not only with the appearance of Tony Stark and SHIELD, but the introduction of Dr. Samson and the guy who will become the Leader, this Hulk is preparing the way for future Marvel films. And the kid in me says cool. But one does worry that the films will lose their need to be any good if they get people hooked into all this continuity/cross-over stuff. That certainly happened with the comics themselves.

Posted by RWB | June 15, 2008 7:15 AM

By the way, the July 18 refernce is apparently to the upcoming Batman film. I say this so that no one will else will have to Google(R) to know what Shawn is referencing.

Posted by Glaivester | June 15, 2008 11:52 AM

Jon H: "I just hope Marvel has more cohones in its movies, than the Fantastic 4 producers had, and don't chicken out in the same way. I want Galactus as a giant guy in purple armor."

As the story goes, Galactus appeared as a cloud *because* the F4 producers were thinking ahead. They wanted the armored guy to be the big reveal in yet another installment (or a Silver Surfer spinoff).

JoePo: "shoehorning in a character, like Daredevil in the terrible death of the Hulk tv movie, can backfire terribly."

Bzzt! Daredevil was in "Trial of the Incredible Hulk." Matt Murdock was Bill Bixby's lawyer. And yes, it was terrible.

Woody Bombay: "You mean I should have stayed through the "Iron Man" credits?"

Nick Fury shows up at Tony Stark's house and invites him to join the "Avengers initiative." It's not worth sitting through the credits to see.

Notice that the movies have generally followed the Ultimate continuity. The more streamlined universe attempts to tie everything into common origins without as many extraneous elements.

Posted by Grumpy | June 15, 2008 1:28 PM

Angelina Jolie is going to make Hollywood okay with a story in which the heroes shoot cops and rape for fun? I'm not seeing it.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 15, 2008 3:29 PM

As others have said, the reason Iron Man and this new Hulk film have been able to be more centrally in continuity with each other than other movies is that Marvel made these films in-house, as they are doing the upcoming Captain America, Thor, and Avengers movies. FF, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc., (as well as the Ang Lee Hulk) were all farmed out to other studios, who therefore could only use the characters they had licensed for that film.

I agree that continuity is a two-edged sword in the comics, but that's because they put out so many. If you've only got a few movies a year, it's certainly manageable.

Posted by Cliffy | June 15, 2008 7:34 PM

If in "Wanted" the heroes shoot cops, this will become my favorite movie of all time - next to "V for Vendetta" where the hero blows up Parliament and gets the leader of the country killed.

Who is Angie going to rape? This I have to see.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 15, 2008 8:16 PM

For the most part, Marvel doesn't try to deal with the implications of a world which is basically our world except that it has dozens of super-heroes running around in it.

It's more common than you think. Ever heard of the Civil War?

Posted by Quietus | June 15, 2008 8:57 PM

I enjoy the occasional easter egg tossed to the fans (and I think that's all Nick Fury is in his appearances), but the idea of all of these stories taking place in the same universe is a terrible plot device and I hate when they do this in the comics.

When there's an existential threat to the planet Earth, or even a real threat to a city - every super hero on the planet would descend on it, particularly the globe trotting ones. It's really only compelling if you assume that the only person who can stop it is the hero being focused on.

Spider-Man wouldn't be terribly special in the X-Men universe; everyone would just assume he was another mutant.

X-Men follows through to the logical conclusion of what a planet full of super-people would be like. Stand alone heroes like Spider-Man or Batman make no sense in that context.

And then you have the Justice League problem - any team or universe in which Superman exists really leaves nothing for any other superhero to do. The writers are forced to either pretend Superman couldn't wipe the floor with any threat by himself, or come up with some hackneyed plot device to cripple him. It's exceedingly lame.

Posted by Eric | June 15, 2008 10:03 PM

Superman is always a problem...his biggest weakness is really that there's only one of him. And no one can match him. So, he does all the work. So, they boot him out of the JLA so that the other guys can do something.

And they replace him with a guy who is just as strong as Superman, and they give him the additional powers of shape shifting, reading your mind, and he's smarter than superman to boot. Yup, everybody's favorite Martian Manhunter.

The Green Lantern is basically the same as superman. Virtually omnipotent, except that he lacks Superman's greatest weakness, seeing as how there are thousands of Green Lanterns. Even if you cover yourself in yellow stuff, a green lantern just has to chuck a big rock at you and you're toast.

Weaker superheroes are just more fun. Which is why Batman rules. And the Christopher Nolan Batman movie(s) rule all. I hope he continues to resist the impulse to go all unrealistic. Keep it with realistic-ish villains. Don't have Batman go too much crazier in terms of weaponry (he's not freaking james bond). Keep it in the realm almost believable.

One thing I never got about Marvel - people are afraid of mutants and hate them. People believe that Spiderman is some crazy threat to the world.

But they love all the other superheroes. The Avengers. Captain America. The Fantastic Four.

Why the hating on mutants, but loving people who seem like they're...mutants?

Posted by jerry 101 | June 16, 2008 2:02 PM