Messages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y346zGJ3SKk

Since I'm currently subscribed to a month of Disney+, I thought I might as well make the most of it and check out some other offerings besides the new Daredevil show. I've compiled a watch list that includes Alien: Romulus, Firefly (which I started watching ten years ago but never finished), Avatar 2, Treasure Planet, The Orville, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and 28 Weeks Later.

I also decided to check out The Mandalorian. People have been recommending this to me since it first premiered five years ago, but until now I resisted the temptation to watch it. In fact I haven't watched any new Star Wars media since Episode IX came out. But over the past few days I've binge watched most of the first season of The Mandalorian, and I hate to admit it... but it's very, very good. I wanted to dislike it so I could wash my hands of Star Wars, but I can't deny The Mandalorian is a solid show. I've heard the quality drops in season 3, but the first season is very entertaining. It's fast paced, exciting, showcases excellent costume design and special effects, and manages to be funny without resorting to the snarky quipster humour that's sunk so many other recent TV shows. I almost wish it wasn't Star Wars. That it was a brand new sci-fi franchise untainted by its connection to a horribly tarnished IP. But there it is.

The online consensus seems to be that Rogue One, the first two seasons of The Mandalorian and Andor are the only worthwhile things to emerge from Disney-era Star Wars. I'm not sure if I'll get a chance to check out Andor before my subscription runs out, but I certainly intend to watch the second season of The Mandalorian. I'm afraid it's got me hooked. However, I still think Star Wars in general is a dying franchise with a bleak future ahead of it. It's not quite as far gone as Doctor Who, but at the rate it's going it'll soon catch up.

I hope they bring Yung's Elektra back in a future season of BA. Her storyline never got the closure it deserved following The Defenders.

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).

Danish bodybuilder Sven-Ole Thorsen would've been a good choice for Red Hulk. He was only 1½ inches shorter than Ferrigno and was muscular enough to present a credible physical match for him. Thorsen's probably best remembered among movie buffs for portraying villainous henchmen in Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and for playing Tiger in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. He made numerous TV appearances, including as Omega in the 1990s Flash episode 'Alpha', so a guest shot on TIH wouldn't have been beneath him.

Obviously the Thunderbolt Ross Red Hulk didn't exist back when this show was made. But as you say, Johnson liked the idea of a red Hulk (it makes sense – red=anger) and could have created his own take on the concept that was unrelated to Ross, similar to the Dell Frye monster in 'The First'. Such a villain would have been well within the show's budgetary means.

I reckon Ross himself also could have appeared as a separate villain. The Bixby Hulk is meant to be something of an urban legend, so it wouldn't have worked having the Army constantly pursue him. It's better having a tabloid journalist like McGee on his trail, whose credibility is dubious. But Ross could have appeared in a one-off episode as a general who learns of the Hulk's existence and becomes determined to destroy him. As far as casting goes, how about Dennis Weaver? He was a popular TV actor in the 1970s and would have been in his mid-to-late fifties at the time.

He could have become a recurring threat, similar to Colonel Lynch in The A-Team, but probably would have worked best as a guest villain in a standalone episode.

Despite his pigheadedness, I've always kind of admired Thunderbolt Ross. It takes serious balls for an ordinary human to repeatedly take on the Hulk in combat. Even before the whole Red Hulk thing, he was willing to go up against Banner armed with ordinary weapons.

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.

I haven't read 'Return of the Monster', but a Hulk story filtered through a post-911 lens sounds like an interesting concept. I'm also a huge X-Files fan, so if it evokes that series then that's another reason for me to check it out. I'll add it to my reading list.

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.

The first Thor movie wasn't too bad from what I remember. Kenneth Branagh imbued it with a Shakespearean flavour that was distinct from the other Phase One movies. But I never liked The Dark World. The Thor film series could have been the MCU's answer to The Lord of the Rings. Instead the studio downplayed the mythical grandeur of the source material in favour of obvious comedy centred on annoying side characters.

Ragnarok did seem to strike a chord with casual viewers, which I guess is why they doubled down on Taika Waititi's approach. I know people who aren't comic fans who enjoyed it, but to me it was just a waste of the Planet Hulk story. Similar to how The Flash wasted the Flashpoint story. In both cases the filmmakers took an epic saga in which the displaced hero fights for survival in a dystopian world and ultimately suffers tremendous personal loss, and reduced it to a goofy cameo-filled comedy bereft of the pathos that defined the original comic. At least Marvel had the excuse of not being allowed to make a straight-up adaptation of Planet Hulk owing to the legal situation with Universal. DC had no comparable excuse to screw up Flashpoint as badly as they did.

As to your other point, it is a shame that his tenure as Batman came to such an undignified end. But his return to the character was apparently meant to coincidence with a younger, more diverse and exclusively female DC Trinity taking the lead. Basically, it was going to be the Super Girl Bosses, with Keaton being the male, pale and stale relic from the bad old days who needs to Do Better™ or something.

That's not a direction I ever would want to see Batman go, let alone Keaton's incarnation of the character.

Likewise. We probably did dodge a bullet there, so maybe things worked out for the best. Had he continued in the role, Keaton might well have gotten the Jake Skywalker treatment.

What would the DC equivalent of the M-She-U be? The D-She-U? The D-C-She-U? Or how about the DEI-C-U? Either way, it would've been awful seeing Batman and Superman get shelved in favour of their diverse-and-inclusive female replacements. The Flash (2023) had a lot of problems, but at least Keaton's Batman was mostly handled with respect. I still think we'll get a decent Batman-centric fan edit of out that movie one day.

No, Jess snapped his neck in the season one finale. Which really annoyed me at the time, as I was hoping he'd live long enough to face Cox's Daredevil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hWZcvjsA40

I vaguely remember Killgrave appearing in the second season as some kind of hallucination haunting Jess. The IMDb lists David Tennant as appearing in season 3 as well, but I assume that was in a similar hallucinatory capacity. I don't think I ever watched season three. If I did, I've forgotten it entirely.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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've heard that. The question for me is how long do they wait? Indefinitely? Reeves can get treatment for whatever he's afflicted with, but I don't buy in to the notion he's irreplaceable. One man holding up the works means the whole universe can die before it even flourishes, which is the worst option. I liked The Penguin but I'm not sure fans would accept this series existing exclusively on the small screen after its cinematic debut in 2022. I'm also unsure if Pattinson would be up for lenghty stints on that format either.

Waiting this long is the fault of WB in my view. If I'm sick at work the show goes on without me. If he actually has a general sequel outline and the studio want to use it, have him give it and have someone else write it. But here we are, to the point I feel like the series is being killed in the crib. I've seen this sentiment expressed elsewhere too. The delays make people long for something else as tastes change. Once Superman 2025 comes out, and if people feel generally okay with what the DCU is doing, they'll be wanting to see its Batman. If a script still isn't ready at that point, something has surely got to happen.

The Batman almost feels cursed at this point. The first film's production was repeatedly delayed owing to the uncertainty surrounding Affleck's involvement. Then WB settled on it being a brand new Batman and the movie was scheduled for release in June 2021. Then COVID threw a spanner in the works and it got delayed until 2022. And now the sequel is getting pushed back further and further. It's interesting to imagine an alternate timeline where those delays didn't occur. Imagine if Reeves' first film had come out in 2021, as originally intended. Allowing for a three-year production cycle, the sequel would have come out in 2024. And now, in 2025, we'd be looking forward to the third and possibly final film in the series and discussing the future of the franchise beyond that.

If The Batman II does get made, I don't see how they can stick to the original plan of focusing on a young rookie Batman. Rookie Batman should be aged in his twenties or, at most, early thirties. Even if The Batman II meets its current 2027 release date, Pattinson will be in his forties by then. That's fine for an established Batman who's in his prime, but it's obviously too old for a rookie Batman in his Year One/Two/Three phase. The entire project will need rethinking.

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.

It must have been ten or fifteen years since I last watched Ang Lee's Hulk right the way through. It's high time I dusted off the DVD and reappraised it. From what I remember, Lee's approach also had a strong emphasis on psychology. 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.

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?

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.

By virtue of being a part-reboot, part-continuation, old story beats are bound to be retread. Season 3 saw Kingpin taken out of the picture, but this season brings him back. I feel like the universe has much more to offer than just the Kingpin - as much as it makes sense to keep falling back on one of your most successful characters.

I like how Kingpin was handled in the second season of the Netflix show. He was still present, but biding his time in prison while other villains took centre stage. If BA s2 follows the Devil's Reign arc, as I'm confident it will, then it should end with a decisive defeat of Kingpin. That will leave room at the top for a new villain to take the crown. In the comics Byron 'Butch' Fisk became the next Kingpin, and I've a suspicion Daniel Blake might be in line for a similar role in the MCU.

There are still plenty of classic Daredevil comic villains they've yet to adapt in live action. One of the worst myths about DD is that he has a weak gallery of rogues. That was true in the Silver Age, but nowadays I'd argue he has the second best roster of enemies of any Marvel hero after Spider-Man. He's got Kingpin, Elektra, the Hand, the Owl, Jester, Bullseye, Muse, the Punisher, Echo, Mister Fear, Gladiator, Typhoid Mary and Purple Man, to name but a few.

The proof of this is the way Marvel Studios keeps taking Daredevil's enemies – and in some cases his stories – and using them in other heroes' TV shows. I don't begrudge Jessica Jones for using Purple Man, as he was the main antagonist in the original Alias comic, but I'm less tolerant of them using Nuke as well. Iron Fist made prominent use of the Hand in both seasons, and the second season adapted elements from Ann Nocenti's Typhoid Mary arc, including the title villain herself. Kingpin and Echo were used in the Hawkeye series, which also adapted plot points from David Mack's Parts of a Hole. Mister Hyde was used in the second season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Leap-Frog was used in She-Hulk.

Despite all this, there are still plenty of classic villains the makers of BA could use in future seasons. The two villains I'd most like to see Cox's Daredevil face would be Mister Fear and Typhoid Mary. The Larry Cranston Mister Fear would be a good fit for the 'Out' storyline, which I think the next season of BA might lead into. As for Typhoid, I'm happy for Alice Eve to reprise the role provided they bring her characterisation more in line with the comics. Give her the twin samurai swords, the face paint and the multiple personalities, not to mention her powers of pyrokinesis and telekinesis. Mary Walker was Kingpin's bodyguard during the Mayor Fisk and Devil's Reign arcs, so BA s2 offers a good place to bring her back.

and Matt flippantly tried to kill a guy with no real buildup or repercussons. He had no idea Bullseye would be fine after pushing him off a building. That was sure lucky.

That scene was yet another example of BA repeating something they'd already done in the Netflix show. Season three ended with Kingpin breaking Bullseye's spine and Dex undergoing some kind of reconstructive surgery. Comic fans assumed his skeleton was being laced with Adamantium, as that's what happened in the comics after Daredevil dropped him off a roof in Frank Miller's 'Last Hand' (DD V1 #181).

If Bethel's Bullseye now has Adamantium like his comic book counterpart, that would explain how he survived being pushed off the roof. The question is did Matt know Bullseye would survive? The comic book Daredevil could detect the Adamantium in Bullseye's body using his super senses, and the MCU version should be able to sense it too. Or did Matt momentarily lose control and try to kill Bullseye? Was that breaking of his moral code the reason he retired?

The show wasn't terribly clear on this point. I'd like to see the writers revisit Matt's actions in BA season two and confront what happened in more depth. For other heroes this might not seem particularly important, but for Matt Murdock it's a significant enough moral issue to warrant addressing.

The Punisher subplot also comes off like it's chasing a trend from five years ago with the social media "controversy" of cops using the Punisher skull. To be fair, there was precedent for a heavy-handed paramilitary force appropriating the Punisher's image (from the first Punisher miniseries), but that's an example of a series that would have been better adapted on its own rather than portions added into a Daredevil series as an afterthought.

I would have liked the corrupt police storyline to have been more nuanced. Aside from the old commissioner, the cops in the BA were depicted as plain evil and psychotic. It's one thing to have them stepping outside the law because they think it's the only way to help the city. Getting their hands dirty to get the job done, like Malone in The Untouchables. But a lot of what they did was just torture and murder. And the way they stood around watching as Kingpin crushed the skull of their old boss undermined any sense of moral righteousness motivating their actions. The Netflix show also featured corrupt cops, but handled the subject in a more subtle and believable manner.

My first exposure to The Incredible Hulk's pilot movie was renting the VHS from the kids section of the video. Make no mistake that wasn't misplaced there or that it crossed with the family section. I could tell right away this was no kids show when it opened with Banner's nightmare about his wife being killed in an automobile accident. It's remarkable to me how compelling the story was to me at that age and a credit to Johnston how he elevated the material from the source.

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.

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.

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'm glad I'm not the only person who prefers the TV show's origin to the comic book version.

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. 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.