Messages

The Batman Beyond script was being written by the same writer as The Flash and Batgirl, which was already a major red flag for me. I also heard it was going to be set in the present day, not Neo-Gotham. It probably would have been Batman Beyond in name only. The one detail about the script that sounded intriguing was that it was allegedly going to bring back Pfeiffer and focus on the relationship between Bruce and Selina. That's something a lot of us would like to see, but is it the right storyline for a Batman Beyond film? Given the choice between a present day movie featuring Keaton and Pfeiffer, or a proper Batman Beyond movie set in a cyberpunk future, I'd personally prefer the latter.

Curious, but yeah, sounds like yet another example taking something, and diminishing it drastically for the cinematic version. It's more "Batman Continues" than "Batman Beyond" with what little info was put out.

I think the chances of us getting any kind of Batman Beyond movie with Keaton are dead at this point. I don't imagine he'll play Batman again now, unless it's in another comedy sketch like the one he did for the Oscars. We came frustratingly close to getting a series of films with his Batman (we know for a fact that he shot Aquaman II and Batgirl, and I wouldn't be surprised if he shot scenes for other movies as well), but then the change of leadership at WB killed that idea before it had a chance to bear fruit.

I've might've said this before, but I can't even begin to tell you just how frustrating it is that my favorite Batman has SO MUCH lost media in regards to him. This goes back to 1989!

I noticed Shazam 2 on Amazon Prime the other day and was half thinking of watching it. Then I remembered that Rachel Zegler was in it... I think I'll pass.

LOL! Shows you just how much Zegler is on my radar. I didn't even remember her being in it. Not that I'm honestly missing anything there.

I'm not sure if I've read those particular leaks, though I did read an alleged plot point concerning Lex creating an evil Superman clone. Supposedly it's a cross between Bizarro and Ultraman (possibly taking inspiration from Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely's JLA: Earth 2), and this is the figure in black with the 'U' symbol in his chest in the set pics. Rumours also suggest that Corenswet himself might portray the character unmasked.

If this is true, it'd be cool if Ultraman could escape into a parallel universe at the end of the movie and create the Crime Syndicate of Amerika. I've always wanted to see Batman face off against Owlman in live action. Introducing Ultraman in Superman '25 would set up a JLA movie based on the Crisis on Two Earths plot.

I guess that could work, though I know it's just Gunn wanting to put his own spin on a character most people have never heard of, and naturally, you can get away with it. However, I think Ultra and the Syndicate would have much more profound dramatic weight in the grand scheme of things, as unknown invaders from a alternate earth that are here to take over, rather than a defeated villain returning once again with a posse of his own. I don't know. The stakes seem higher with the former, than the latter...

Being that the New52 seems to be something of a darling with the current regime handling DC (*deep sigh*), I will say that "Forever Evil" was at least adequate in how it handled the Crime Syndicate's introduction into the New52 stuff. Not great, but not outright horrible.

My issue with 2003 Hulk is how it gives a bit too much away in the opening part of the film. From there, the viewer is pretty consistently 10 or 15 minutes ahead of the story.

It's not that it's a bad movie. But when the audience can arrive at the final destination before the narrative itself, you can only call that a weakness.

Enjoyable film but that's a bit of a problem with it.

Some people I've spoken to were really put off by all the 'battle' between Bruce and his father, David. Basically leaning too much into symbolic with the outline of figure in clouds, and ultimately anti-climatic. I wonder had David turned into a Maestro-like Old Man Hulk, or even a evil Gray Hulk, and the battle been more of a summer popcorn spectacle crowd pleaser, would the film been more warmly received?

I felt both the 2003 and 2008 movies did a decent job of keeping the dramatic focus on the title character's internal struggles, while also presenting super powered action scenes to entertain the popcorn crowd. Neither film, from what I recollect, strayed too far from Kenneth Johnson's approach. Had Johnson had more money and resources back in the 1970s and 80s, perhaps he would have occasionally featured villains like Abomination. The two-part story 'The First' was the closest the TV series came to something like that.

Yeah, it's kinda of a shame that Johnson didn't just go with another body builder like Lou, and have the villainous Hulk in "The First" be colored red. As, according to Johnson himself, not being a fan of the comic, didn't really understand why the Hulk was green and not red. Apparently, he brought this up to Stan Lee, but Stan (thankfully) was adamant that the Hulk remain green. Had Johnson went with his idea for the bad Hulk, we might've had a Red Hulk appear in the comics waaaay before it actually happened (2008-ish I believe).

To me, the 2003 HULK kinda made it a point to differentiate itself from the Bixby series. At least to some extent. Gone was the loner/fugitive aspect. Gone was the light green eyes before Banner transforms into the Hulk. No 'Lonely Man' melody theme to be had. Outside of the Ferrigno cameo, only the classic, "Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" line was incorporated, and it wasn't even in english.

Now with TIH in 2008, a lot of that Johnson stuff was brought back. If even just briefly. We even got a blink-and-you'll-miss-it Bill Bixby cameo as he appears very briefly on a tv, and (I believe), Jack McGee is brought in, only as a college student rather than a investigative reporter, and essentially names "The Hulk" in the MCU.

I've been on a Hulk binge over the past week. I've been re-reading Greg Pak's run on the comics. Currently I'm halfway through World War Hulk, which is better than I remembered. I've also replayed Hulk: Ultimate Destruction (right now I'm stuck on the final boss fight against Abomination at the dam). And of course I re-watched the 1977 TV movie. When it comes to my preferred Hulk media, I've noticed I tend to like stories that are either very grounded or very out there. My favourite Hulk comic is Planet Hulk, yet my favourite live action Hulk is the Bixby/Ferrigno version. Is there a contradiction there?

Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't.

I get what you mean though. I remember really liking Bruce Jones' Hulk run with "Return of the Monster", which kinda brought in a very X-Files-ish take on the Hulk. This was shortly after 9/11, and it was somewhat of a refreshing take to have such deterrence on Banner hulking out in every issue, and when he did, the depiction was like a event happening, along with a element of horror. There was a story that featured the Absorbing Man that was being published right when HULK 2003 was being released, and though it kinda made Absorbing Man a bit too OP, I liked it.

Not necessarily. Planet Hulk is less a story about Banner than the Hulk, and the Hulk fits in with the science fantasy setting of Sakaar – a world of monsters. In such a context, Banner serves to represent something in the Hulk's psyche. In comparison, the Bixby Hulk franchise was really about Banner, who obviously fits in better on Earth than he would on Sakaar. With the Bixby series, the Hulk represents something in Banner's psyche. In short, stories about Banner work better when grounded, while stories about the Hulk work better in a more fantastical context. The Bixby series focuses on Banner, so the grounded approach works. Younger comic fans who dismiss the TV show based on the lack of Hulk action are missing the point.

I can only imagine what you really thought of Thor Ragnorak and how Planet Hulk was adapted there. I remember being so very disappointed with Thor Dark World, that I actually thought Ragnorak was good when I was walking out of the theater. The more it set in though however, the less and less I care for it. Just another great storyline greatly diminished in favor for quips and chuckles. Gotta feed the normie crowds, and that's where the money is at.

Thought this was pretty cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ToblUZbAQ

["We have a bit of other collaboration with Matt Reeves, but Peter and James know he is a writer-directing auteur in his own right, and that it will come when he's written his best Batman script and is ready."]

Something I was feeling but couldn't say as good as Uncle Bingo. For all the points of differences like Krypto, Superman 2025 seems inherently the same as what came before with Reeve. And not just Reeve, but just about every MCU movie that's been avalanched down the mountains the past decade. I don't see this being the game changer or cultural moment the fans want it to be. That stuff is rare. At a bare minimum I'd be happy with recouping production costs and making enough profit. Superman 2025 doesn't just have to fight its own war against the Superman curse, but general apathy about going to the cinema.

Yeah, one of the things I've heard regarding how well this film needs to perform given it's expensive price tag, is that it can't just be adequate, but the movie has to be great. That remains to be seen, and perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh, but I'm just not seeing anything to get really jazzed about. The Donnerverse imagery and nods leave me just as cold as it did when Bryan Singer did it back in 2006 with "Superman Returns", and the look/feel/humor comes across as the same old formuliac stuff we've been getting for years now. Sugar coating these factors with a CGI Gunn self insert mutt just doesn't inspire confidence.

Lately there was a social media spat between Grace Randolph and X-Men '97 showrunner Beau DeMayo concerning Matt Reeves. It sounds like he's battling serious health issues, with Randolph going so far as to compare his situation to that of Black Panther star Chadwick Boseman. DeMayo called Randolph out for saying this, but in doing so seemingly verified that Reeves' health is in a precarious state. We'll just have to keep him in our thoughts and prayers and hope he pulls through whatever it is he's battling.

Unfortunately this means the Batman II script still hasn't been completed. WB CEO Pam Abdy recently said the following:

"We have a bit of other collaboration with Matt Reeves, but Peter and James know he is a writer-directing auteur in his own right, and that it will come when he's written his best Batman script and is ready."

Yeah, that doesn't sound good. If that's the case, it does provide some understanding as to why "The Batman Part II" script still hasn't been turned in fully yet. Reeves has to take care of himself first.

It's also rumoured that James Gunn isn't too keen on the idea of multiple cinematic Batmen and would perhaps prefer for Reeves' iteration to be shelved.

Wasn't there a story where a "Batman Beyond" script was in the process of being written following, "The Flash", but the writer was told to stop following Safran and Gunn getting their promotions? Personally, I don't know how a "Batman Beyond" movie would've worked with "Batgirl" seemingly having Barbara being the protege of Keaton's Batman, but perhaps "Beyond" was going to be one of those elseworlds projects disconnected from the main line DCU?

If that's the case, then yeah, Gunn not being keen on competing Batmen does check out.

Many pop culture commentators are saying we're in the age of cinematic slop. We've gone through the age of cinematic woke, and now we're in a new age of bland, anodyne CGI-filled slop that doesn't do anything new, fails to engage the viewer emotionally or intellectually, and is best experienced as background noise while doing something more productive. I watched both Black Adam and Morbius last year, and they're perfect examples of slop.

My main concern for this film is that it could turn out to be slop like WB's other recent DC adaptations. That it'll tick a lot of technical boxes without engaging me intellectually or making me care about what's happening.

That's the thing, there's a sameness that's been settling in for some time now, and all this stuff just feels indistinguishable from one another, with no real stand outs. I'm continually buying this stuff on blu ray, but honestly, it's literally just out of habit (and some OCD in there too), as I have DC/Marvel movies sitting on my shelves, that I had little to no interest in watching. I finally watched Shazam 2 a week or two ago, after having the blu ray for months, and the only thing I remember about it, was Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman making a appearance. As the film was clearly made to mimmick the MCU formula, and thus, just came across as, like you said, slop. Outside of Gal looking pretty fine of course.

So far we know very little about the movie's plot. All of the marketing has been structured around conveying a certain feel, but hasn't really told us much about the kind of story we can expect. I don't want too much to be shown in advance, or to have the plot ruined, but it would be nice to know something about the direction the story's heading in. Just a one-line elevator pitch would suffice. The story really is a deal breaker for me. There are so many great stories in the comics they could adapt, there's no excuse for giving us a retread of one we've already seen adapted.

Well, speaking of the story plot, and being that my interest in this movie isn't really that great to be perfectly honest (surprise, surprise, right? lol), I read the plot spoilers that leaked out on the net some weeks back (and to which was confirmed to be true by Youtuber Chris Gore, so take that for what it's worth. I don't find Gore to be a negative Nancy, but I've noticed he keeps saying he's cautiously optimstic, but at the same time, very worried), and if what I read is true then ... oof. I understand there's some late filming that's going on right now (always a good sign), so perhaps some of the problems can be rectified, but its unreasonable to think a overhaul can be accomplished.

That prologue still packs a punch now. It immediately hooks the viewer and makes us sympathise with Banner, similar to how the beginning of the first John Wick movie uses the title character's personal tragedy to get us on his side. The opening sequence also establishes the psychological foundation of Banner's drive to unlock the superhuman potential hidden in his DNA. We see how that drive is rooted in past trauma and his failure to save his wife.

The grief of the prologue is later heartbreakingly echoed in the film's finale. I love the extra twist of tragedy where Banner can't remember the Hulk's memories – Elaina uses her dying breath to profess her love for Banner, but he doesn't remember her doing so because he was in Hulk mode when she said it. Then in the final scene we see him conjecturing that she might have loved him, but now he'll never know for certain. That uncertainty adds an extra note of anguish to the film's already sad ending. You seldom find writing that good in modern Marvel films.

I know many fans criticise Johnson for downplaying the more fantastical elements of the source material. And while I'm usually one for embracing comic book excess, this is one instance where the more grounded approach clearly worked. Could they have made a more comic bookish show where the Hulk regularly fought super villains? Maybe. But it would've been pretty goofy and wouldn't have had the same emotional and psychological depth as what Johnson delivered.

Johnson cited Victor Hugo's Les Misérables as an influence on the series, and the format also was clearly indebted to The Fugitive. I imagine Universal's Wolf Man movie series must have been an influence as well, as there are obvious parallels between Lon Chaney Junior's Larry Talbot and Bixby's Banner. The common factor with all of these influences in the emphasis on relatable human suffering – trauma, grief, loneliness, displacement – which I expect would've been diluted if the show had veered too far into FX-driven fantasy. The 1970s Hulk stands up precisely because it tried to be a serious science fiction show and not a goofy monster mash. It took a potentially ridiculous premise and made it frighteningly believable.

As per usual, you eloquently stated and provided much more context in why the Johnson/Bixby/Ferrigno "The Incredible Hulk" was such a game changer, and truly one of the all time greats in adapting a comic book character, to live action. Making him much more palpable to casual viewers, and not just catering to comic book enthusiasts. Which, more or less, has been completely inverted these days, being much more spectacle and formuliac rather than experimental and a conformation of restraint.

The Incredible Hulk Returns (1988) offers us a glimpse of what a more comic bookish Hulk series might have been like. And while that movie is fun (I still have my childhood VHS copy), it's hardly on the same dramatic level as the 1977 film.

Yeah, I think the nostalgia (even by 1988) of bringing back David/Hulk for a TV movie was something of a sugar high that made it a lot of fun for viewers back then. I guess each movie being essentially back door pilots for a (sorta) spin-off show was the biggest hook for the network (I guess there's no way of knowing just how much Thor/Daredevil would have interacted with Bixby's Banner/Hulk, so that's why I added the "Sorta" in there).

I don't personally recall watching Return/Trial when they originally premiered, but I can imagine for those who were children and grew up with the original series, Return/Trial/Death was like viewing a familiar world thru a different lens. Sorta like the approach of the DCAU's "New Adventures of Batman" differed from "Batman The Animated Series".

It's very telling that when it came time to introduce the MCU Hulk they opted for the origin story from the TV show over the comics. Only in the MCU I don't recall them ever referencing Bruce being a widower.

True. In a way, I kinda think due to the mixed reception of 2003's HULK directed by Ang Lee, the thinking was, "Well, let's go back to what worked." Which isn't really unlike what we get with Superman continually going back to the refuge of Donnerverse imagery and the Williams score. About as 2008's TIH got to the widower aspect, was Ed Norton's Banner was introduced as already being estranged from Betty Ross following his first Hulk-out, which she was present at and (apparently) injured from. That's about as deep as it got.

 

In the 1977 film, the initial spark of rage that sets him on the path to becoming the Hulk is rage at himself; anger at his lack of strength, his inadequacy and inability to save his wife. That's what drives his obsessive work ethic, pushing him to recklessly experiment on himself. That unchecked rage subsequently grows and manifests in the form of the Hulk. But it all begins with that tragic car crash that took his wife away from him. The MCU Hulk, as far as I remember, doesn't have that drive.

That's one of the things I do appreciate about Eric Bana's performance in HULk, was that he did a good job in evoking some sense of having repressed rage throughout the movie. Which was largely absent with Norton's and Ruffalo's versions. With the origin in the 2003 film, I guess you can say it was a balance of the Bixby version and the comic book origin. As Bana's Banner clearly has inner rage, and is oftentimes aloof and distant, but his gamma exposure isn't due to his own reckless mania, but in saving a fellow co-worker from what would be logically perceived as certain death. Giving Bruce a element of heroism without going full blown Lee/Kirby with it.

If test screenings are to be believed, apparently the film felt episodic and reaction was mixed. The humor and "silliness" was cited, with ViewerAnon saying Warner Bros.' internal response was less glowing than some positive reports suggested. I don't necessarily have a problem with Krypo, and I'm up for new things, but I get the feeling he's going to be pushed hard, and possibly too hard.

All I really needed Gunn to do, is to get out of his comfort zone, and truly swing for the fences. If this is the start of your planned DCU, let's aspire to try something a little different, and not rely on playing it safe with MCU-style humor and quips (MCU-style quips is just beyond tired at this point, and with so many movies aping it, it's just killing movies altogether ... but the director is one of the main architects of this style of humor, so that's expecting waaay too much lol), smashing things together (we've seen this a lot and the fall out has been incredibly mixed), and having a overabundance of characters the movie seriously doesn't need.

Progression in recent years, seems to be not to not get rid of the poison pill, but to simply get better at coating it in sugar. Still, the end result remains the same.

I'll parrot what's been said here, in that I too believe that Kenneth Johnson elevated the source material (along with Bill Bixby, as Johnson has stated several times that Bixby was absolutely adamant that Johnson stick to the original Hulk pitch, and not allow the network to succeed the show into a failure via meddling), and origin of the Hulk. Having Banner being a individual suffering from PTSD, survivor's guilt, frustration with one self, and subsequently becoming a cursed victim of his own unwavering mania, gave the origin of the Hulk a much more profound effect and way more of a hook for general audiences to grasp than the outright hilarity the original Lee/Kirby origin provided back in 1962.

Straying from the source material, oftentimes, is frowned upon more often these days, but there are examples where I think providing a divergence from the comic book-to-live action transition actually boosts the material for the better. This is one of them.

I think Jimmy sincerely missed a golden opportunity with this, in simply casting himself as Superman. The long and short of the campaign thus far, has amusingly been just as focused on him (if not more), as it has been the actual title character.

Speaking of branding, is it too late to have his name above the title? I'm thinking, "Why not?" at this point.