Marvel Cinematic And More News

Actually, that's incorrect. Ang Lee's Hulk (which was released in 2003) is not apart of the MCU. At that time Universal had the rights to the character and did that movie under their direction.

A short time after Lee's Hulk was released Marvel regained most of the rights and began on a reboot, which resulted in the June 2008 Incredible Hulk, directed by Louis Leterrier. This movie came out just over a month after Iron Man and is officially the second movie in the MCU.

Also incorrect is that any of Lee's movie is apart of the MCU, only the 2008 is in the MCU. An example being William Hurt reprising his role as General Ross in Age of Ultron, who only played the character in the 2008 movie.

Whatever issues happened with Norton has not effected the fact that the movie is still apart of the MCU and has been referenced in at least AoU. So no they aren't trying to erase it or ignore that it exists in anyway.

The real reason there was no follow up movie to the 2008 Incredible Hulk has less to do with any Norton issue and all to do with the Universal issue. Though Marvel Studios got the character rights back they did not get the distribution rights back. So any solo Hulk movie would have to be distributed by Universal instead of Marvel/Disney, which isn't going to happen.

Ugh!

I made a mistake, the General Ross character wasn't in AoU, he was in Civil War.

Question: where are Tord's sidekicks in this picture? Caption Maraca has Buffy and Fulcrum, Iron Hypocrite has Watch My Skin and Spider-Bambi, and Tord has... Shrulk?

I'm not sure what you are going on about, pretty much all the key heroes are being shown (with the exception of Hawkeye and Ant-man (that concept art with Ant-man doesn't count, it's not an actual movie poster)).

On a side note.

Making fake names for characters is DarkVisor's thing, it's not cool to steal someone else's shtick .

And an extra note.

Ok we get it, you don't like the MCU. Your opinion has been duly noted.

He doesn't like the DCEU either

Yeah, and '08 followed on where '03 ended, and it's not the first time a continuation has had a different actor in the same role (remember the '90s Blat-movies? or Iron-man?)

No, there was no follow up of any kind, the Incredible Hulk with Norton is a complete reboot and the only thing apart of the MCU.

Ang Lee's film is gone, it does not exist at all in MCU, there are no connection to it in any way. Lee's film was a Universal Pictures film not a Marvel Studio's film, only Marvel Studio made films (and the Spiderman: Homecoming series) are in the MCU. Marvel even stated that Lee's film was like a parallel universe one-shot comic book.


Unlike what many think a change of an actor does not mean they are or need to start over, such as you exampled with the 90's Batman movies. Those movies were all a continuation of the narrative, the actors made little difference in that narrative.

But when it comes to what happened with Spiderman and the afore mentioned Hulk movies, those were direction changes. They were creating a new narrative, interpreting the characters in new ways and with Hulk there was the added thing of being made by a different company. So that's why they kept doing origin stories for Spiderman.

Did Lee's Hulk not end in the jungles of South America? Did Incredible Hulk not start in South America?

Sure you are correct Hulk ends in some South American jungle and Incredible Hulk begins with Banner in a Brazilian city but that doesn't make them connected. South America is just simply a perfect place for someone to disappear and considering how Banner doesn't want to change, his travel options are a bit limited, making that southern continent the best he can do.

Lee's film is not an MCU movie, period, there is no debating it. That is not me making up a theory or a guess, it is a full on fact stated by Marvel themselves. Lee's Hulk is just a stand alone film, sitting off in it's own little universe.

So, if Lee hadn't done Hulk, would there have been any Marvel movie (other than X-men and Spider-Yam)?
And not once, ever, said that Lee's Hulk was part of the MCU, not once

Short answer. Yes, there would have been.

Long answer.

The current version of Marvel Studios was built out of the want to regain their control of and the profits from their properties. Every movie made prior to Iron Man belonged to other studios and Marvel got next to nothing of the money from them.

Ang Lee's Hulk had little to nothing to do with the current era of comic book films nor Marvel's desire to make their own movies, it's barely a foot note. Both of the Hulk films rank near the bottom of the box office earnings chart for Marvel related titles. Only the latest Fantastic 4 and the 3 Blade movies had less earnings.

X-men is what ushered in this era, it showed that comic book films were wanted and profitable again. To which Spiderman and then the Nolan Batman proved was sustainable. And Marvel had to just sit back and watch it happen without them, until they were able to regain the rights to Iron Man and then Hulk. With those back they were able to build the MCU around the Avengers, which they had pretty much all the rights to.

I'm going to be a stickler and say that X-Men and Spiderman ushered in the era, given the fact the only reason why X-Men came out first is they pulled a fast one on Singer and made him move up his movie (in order to not have it compete with Spider-Man)

I think you have the timelines mixed up.

X-men was released in July of 2000 and Spiderman was released in April of 2002, a near 2 year difference. Sam Raimi wasn't even hired to direct Spiderman until January of 2000. X-men had actually been delayed, it had an original release date of December 1998, where as Spiderman started moving forward in 1999. So the movies were never on similar schedules.

But even if what you thought was true, I don't believe Spiderman would have been the beginning of the era. The movie was great and far beyond what the 90s Batman movies were but it was just the same old superhero story. X-men however was something completely new, especially to the general audience. It was about a team, it had the mutant oppression upfront and center, it brought a new side to a comic book movies, giving people a different view of what the movies could be.

You're right my timing's with the movies are messed up, I'll concede that . But they did have "similar" enough schedules, Spider-man started in 1999 and X-Men didn't start filming til late 1999 (and before you argue that's not close enough they started going through different scripts in 94' so I really do think were quibbling about that time table )

But for funsies let's throw all that off the table. You say that X-men was something completely new and different. I don't truly disagree with that (although it wasn't the first movie, Generation X was released to television in 94 I think, but there are so many reasons why that didn't do so well). I'd argue that X-men opened the door into what folks could do (as in get away with changing characters and most people not raking them over the coals for it). It's also unfair about some things because Singer was truly rushed in terms of production and filming so you have to concede a lot of Kudos to him for managing to get it out.

However, Hollywood is a business and Spider-Man truly showed Hollywood why they should go back and try to do these movies "right". Spider-Man crushed X-Men in the box office.... making it appealing to those involved in owning movie rights... and while you can argue (which if memory serves even Parker implies in his own movie) that the story has been told before, it was done in such a way that made it a huge commercial success.

I doubt that THIS Classic Hero (and his Team) is in Infinity War


This man (in his skin-grafted Plandanium Armor from Galador) has solo'd The X-Men, The Evil Mutants, The Hulk and had run-ins with the Avengers and others.

He (and his SpaceKnights)



Are on a Galaxy-Wide mission to expose and defeat the threat called the Dire Wraths



Which are a shape-shifting offshoot of the Skrulls.

As unique as they seem I'd love for their story to be told.

Maybe they could be the next "GotG"

Last I heard, ROM was tentatively planned to be a part of a Hasbro Cinematic Universe along with Transformers, Visionaries, G.I. Joe, M.A.S.K. and Micronauts. But the most recent articles I could find on sites like IGN said that ROM and M.A.S.K. movies weren't likely to happen.

It doesn't help that Marvel licensed the ROM name for the comic. They did a Spaceknights limited series a while back, and in it Rom had taken a different name and wasn't even seen in the series (his ship was attacked beforehand and he was presumed dead). If the wiki page is right it was done as a workaround for Marvel no longer having rights to the name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom_(comics)

I'm interested to see how a Hasbro CU would work. GI Joe vs. Transformers?

Do to the fact that he is not an actual Marvel property, no he wont be in IW.

Like willflynne said, Rom's owners (Hasbro) have released statements saying a movie project for him is in the works for a Hasbro Cinematic Universe. Imo that is going to be a really weird CU.

But just like with DC, don't hold your breath. Until filming starts expect any announced movie to not be happening. Except when it comes to Marvel.

I was a fan of Rom when I was a kid, so I'm really hoping the movie happens.