While this is the case, it does bring several of my thoughts on the genre and the general state of science fiction to the forefront of my mind. It reminds me of how superheroes have contributed to the recent surge of nerd popularity, my general dislike for the Hulk, my impressions of Joss Whedon relative to the rest of the science fiction community, and how this massively successful genre has helped reshape how blockbusters are written, directed, and produced. I'll use the next few Mondays to use The Avengers to expand on these thoughts, starting this week with my thoughts on the Hulk.
Let's get this out of the way: I do not like the Hulk. To me, a viewer with little background in the Marvel universe, the Hulk is a hero that simply fails to deliver on-screen. The other two films featuring him can both be generously described as modestly successful. Hulk (2003) earned $62.1 million opening weekend but only scraped together a paltry 30% of those sales on its second weekend, failing to gross $150 million in American sales. With its low-grossing run and massive drop in sales, Hulk has a place in film history for its literal record-breaking mediocrity. In comparison, The Incredible Hulk (2008) achieved similar success, grossing $55.4 million on opening day with sales dropping 60% by the next weekend. I definitely see a pattern.
My question: do we really need any more of the Hulk?
I can see how he would add to the film, but every time I see him mentioned in promotional material, I can't help but ask myself "why?" He's never really stuck with the audience as interesting or endearing due to the endemic literary flaw behind his power: having incredible strength when you're mad is rather boring. It's sort of the same reason why modern audiences don't like Superman. Incredible strength is an uninteresting, cliched trope when there the character has no appreciable drawbacks or weaknesses. Superman's only weakness is kryptonite, while the Hulk's weakness is essentially that he's too awesome.
It seems there is supposed to be a degree of pathos derived from his unstable condition, but the movies just failed to make it meaningful. It's a shame at that; the Jekyll-Hyde duality can make for some great stories when done properly. However, this usually requires that both forms of the character have major flaws of some sort. Again, much like Superman, the Hulk just doesn't have a downside to his alternate form. Writers and directors seem to recognize this, using the Hulk as a vehicle of chaos to give reason to exploding cars and breaking glass. I understand he's a traditional member of the Avengers, which is all well and good. Unfortunately, this doesn't do much to clear my heavily tinted glasses. Other movies like X-Men: First Class have shown us one doesn't need to preserve canon to make a successful movie. While he could add interesting conflict to the group, the fact that modern audiences consistently find the Hulk so unremarkable makes me worry that he could hold some aspect of the film back, as his rather flat personality simply pales in comparison to those of Captain America, Iron Man, and Nick Fury. I certainly hope this isn't the case, but this is all pure speculation.
I truly am excited for this movie, and I hope you don't misconstrue this as a reason not to see it. I just wonder how the Hulk will gel with the movie when it's released this summer. While I've always had my doubts about the character, this could be the big break the Hulk has been looking for, filling a support role for the group while adding an element of internal physical conflict to the group with his indiscriminate rage. We'll just have to wait until this summer to see how the Hulk will fair in the long run.
That's enough about the Hulk, although I'm nowhere near done with my tangetial thoughts. Tune in next Monday, where I'll commit geek-seppuku explaining why I'm less than enthralled by Joss Whedon relative to the rest of the nerdiverse.
Got questions, comments, or feedback? Drop the Doc a line at his Twitter @DocWatsonMD. You can also check out his work and other swell writers at this blog's sister site, The RedShirt Crew.
While I agree a Hulk-centric movie is just going to inherently flop as it really isn't all that interesting, as a member of an ensemble cast I think that worry just falls to the wayside. It's really looking like The Avengers is going to focus on Iron Man and Captain America (as well it should, although I want to see Black Widow and Hawkeye brought to the forefront as well), with the Hulk as more of a side-character. He's still a part of the team, but he's less of a center-stage one, and that makes sense. He isn't all that interesting due to his OP nature, no, but seeing that volatile power in a team setting? That's gonna lead to some interesting conflict and strategy, especially with Tony Stark present to lash out with the dry wit and sarcasm. Not including him, especially considering there WAS a Hulk movie as part of the multi-movie lead-up to this movie, regardless of how poorly it may have done, would just make no sense to me. I understand why you're trying to make the First Class comparison, but it doesn't hold water here because of what Marvel's doing with the tie-in movies.
ReplyDeleteI can see the Hulk really doing well as part of an ensemble cast, and his presence has already lent itself to at least one really amusing exchange between Loki and Stark ('I have an army!' 'We have a Hulk!'). It's completely vaild to be nervous about such a hyped movie, yes, but this reason just seems silly.
(That said, I don't really care for the Hulk, either. XD)
There's a BIG difference between asking the Hulk to carry a movie on his own and asking him to appear as a side character. As a main character, the Hulk is incredibly hard for audiences to relate to, as he's a monstrosity that is practically emotionless and nearly impossible to injure by traditional methods. Directors have to work an awkward balance, trying to spend time with Bruce Banner, the character with plenty of personality and whose story, when done right, is interesting, and the Hulk, who provides all the action bits. In a super hero movie, the action bits are what the movie depends on, so you have a character that cannot develop in the action bits, which make up the majority of the movie. And even IF they chose to focus on the character, his struggle with his Hulk-ness has to be the main entity of his character development, so it comes off as very one note. You see the problem.
ReplyDeleteIn this movie, he's a side character. Banner will be introduced, but he will not be the focus, so the Hulk get to serve a different purpose. Instead of asking the audience to associate themselves with him, he gets to be what is essentially a force of chaos, much like he was in the earliest Avenger comics. See, Banner doesn't have great control over the Hulk at this stage of the series. It's likely that one of the earliest battles will be our main heroes bringing down an out-of-control Hulk. There will be a chance for some human elements from Banner, but since there are other characters that will get much more screen time, it won't come off as one note. And when he is able to control his powers in time to stop the ultimate baddies, he'll be a ton of fun to watch in the action bits.
Short version: The flaws inherent in making the Hulk a lead that hurt his box office numbers will not be present in this movie, since the focus is not on him anymore. Instead, those flaws will be able to provide great individual moments that won't have to be stretched for an entire 90 minute running time, and all the other characters will be better for it.
Flipped around the wording to accommodate for the very valid points you both make. Retrospectively, the original article did come across as a downer on The Avengers, which was not at all my intent. It started as a completely different article and then kinda morphed into the posted form. As per Red's advice, I'm switching the series over to a collection of Avengers-inspired tangents, which feels a lot more "right" than my original post.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your insight!
Of course, though I still think you're being WAY too hard on the Hulk. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on his worth, though I would recommend you check out Greg Pak or Jeph Loeb's interpretation of the Hulk, because I think you'd enjoy it a lot more than the two Hulk movies that have come out in recent years. The Hulk CAN be great when in the hands of a good writer
Delete