Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Very interesting rumors for Avengers 2 and the Hulk (possible spoilers)


Cary Kollins

Recommended Posts

Movie websites exploded yesterday with the rumor that the "phase 3" for Marvel will include the Planet Hulk and World War Hulk storylines. Sounds pretty badass if you ask me. Planet Hulk has Hulk outcast to space where he ends up on a planet where he is sold into slavery and he eventually becomes King of the planet. Then he returns to Earth to battle the Avengers all Hulk-like. This would be pretty epic and sounds conceivable given how popular Hulk was in The Avengers.

51sGEDh7L0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

"So, according to the site's sources The Avengers 2 will set up The Hulk's next solo movie, with a third act or post-credits sequence that sees the Hulk blasted into space by the Marvel Cinematic Universe's version of the Illuminati, presumably after some kind of enormous rampage. Then, as as Phase Three gets underway, we'll see an adaptation of the comic book story Planet Hulk for The Incredible Hulk 2, which would see the Hulk conquering the planet Sakaar Gladiator-style, and lead to a World War Hulk adaptation for The Avengers 3 as Earth's Mightiest Heroes find themselves squaring off against an super-angry Hulk"

http://www.flickerin...-movie-and.html

Here is the original source:

http://latino-review...-phase-3-plans/

Wikipedia pages for "Planet Hulk" and "World War Hulk":

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Planet_Hulk

http://en.wikipedia..../World_War_Hulk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they did it as a solo hulk movie I don't see it working

From Kevin Feige, Marvel's movie head honcho: "Planet Hulk is a cool story. World War Hulk is a cool story... Do I think Hulk can carry a movie and be as entertaining as he was in Avengers? I do believe that. I do believe he absolutely could. We certainly are not even going to attempt that until Avengers 2, so there is a lot of time to think about it."

sounds ambitious and daring, so i doubt its true

i would not mind being wrong

I agree it sounds ambitious and daring, but so was the whole Avengers plan to begin with. I only wish DC had as much balls as Marvel does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean in terms of feature films. Word on the street is that DCs holding out on a Justice League movie until they see how "Man of Steel" performs at the box office.

Marvel had a vision and stuck with it. They planted the seeds for the Avengers movie all the way back to Iron Man 1 and it paid off with the 3rd highest grossing film of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the success of The Avengers has caused a combination of panic and depression at DC.

They know the odds against them pulling off a similar success are astronomical.

I think it's a mistake on their part to reverse the process (i.e. introducing the group before introducing the individual characters). Marvel did it the right way.

Since Marvel did it first - and did it so incredibly well - DC knows there's a good chance they'll wind up looking like little brothers / copycats no matter what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the finally got Bruce Banner right when they picked Mark Ruffalo.

I wanted to like Edward Norton better because his "skinny nerd" persona best fit the physical image I've always had of Banner, but Ruffalo's nervous, twitchy, always-on-edge portrayal just plain worked in a way that I honestly can't imagine Norton duplicating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...