Current Events > Mark Ruffalo Says Hulk Movie Is Too Expensive to Make These Days.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/mark-ruffalo-marvel-flops-hulk-standalone-movie-too-expensive-1235917963/

I don't know how Marvel made two Hulk movies before they merged with Disney but now the Hulk is to pricey to make....what the hell happened for the Hulk to now be" to pricey" to make? Its a disgrace.

Probably not just due to production costs, they may have to share the profits with Universal.

he has to destroy at least half a city in every movie and that kind of cgi is expensive now

Cause they would have to hire Bana and Norton back for a multiverse Hulk thingy

By "pricey" he means "not profitable enough"

I want them to do world war hulk and kill off all the irrelevant characters

Too expensive for the biggest franchise?

By "pricey" he means "not profitable enough"

Hulk's been big since the freaking 70's...good odds he would do better then most of the recent MCU movies if they just freaking tried to make one.

Marvel movies are already almost entirely CGI at this point. I'm curious how much more Hulk could cost than, say, Quantumania. That movie is like 93% CGI.

Blue_Popo posted...

Too expensive for the biggest franchise?

People don't go to movie theaters as much, anymore. Unless the movie grosses $1.6+ billion, then it's not worth spending $400 million to make it.

Tenlaar posted...

Marvel movies are already almost entirely CGI at this point. I'm curious how much more Hulk could cost than, say, Quantumania. That movie is like 93% CGI.

That's the whole point. It's going to take just as much money, if not more, to produce Quantumania, but they don't want the risk that Hulk only grosses as much as a mediocre performing movie.

They spent $275M, only to gross $476M
The CGI needed for Hulk will be much higher, because it's probably going to be set in less fantastical world, and they need to use more detail to highlight the Hulk transformations.

So it's going to cost $400-500M to produce. So now the question is whether you think the Hulk can gross $1 billion worldwide, in a post-COVID setting?

ClayGuida posted...

Probably not just due to production costs, they may have to share the profits with Universal. It's why Sony produces the Spider-Man films despite him being in the MCU. Maybe if Universal wanted to cover the costs they'd absolutely make another.

edit: I don't know

But I thought they got the rights back from Universal last year?

Ragnarok was basically half a hulk movie, just do that again with another character that struggles to get people in theaters on their own

Raikuro posted...

Ragnarok was basically half a hulk movie, just do that again with another character that struggles to get people in theaters on their own

I was actually thinking this at first and checked, Hulk is only on screen for like nine minutes of Ragnarok.

Necronmon posted...

I don't know how Marvel made two Hulk movies before they merged with Disney but now the Hulk is to pricey to make

They didn't. Universal had the rights to Hulk back then. It's only relatively recently that Disney has managed to get the full rights back.

Hulk was a bitch in Infinity War and Endgame anyways

Hulk was a b**** in Infinity War and Endgame anyways

Kind of proves Marvel/ Disney " ruined him" to punish him not being something they fully own...

Necronmon posted...

But I thought they got the rights back from Universal last year?

I thought that wasn't confirmed. I did some checking on google and now I don't know. I see some sources saying Marvel did regain the rights but there's also this Hollywood Reporter article published yesterday that says Universal still has the distribution rights. So, I don't know.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mark-ruffalo-doesnt-think-solo-hulk-movie-will-happen-1235832139/

gamer167 posted...

Hulk was a bitch in Infinity War and Endgame anyways

Which was a good thing. God-mode Hulk would've made the conflict boring. It also highlighted the power of the Gauntlet. That simply using the gauntlet literally kills all mortals besides Hulk and Thanos. And even then, it severely wounds you.

Having a Bitch Hulk was a good thing. I didn't need to see 20 minutes of CGI-Hulk flying around single-handedly destroying Thanos, when there are 50 other Marvel characters that need their time in the movies as well.

lydiaquayle posted...

Which was a good thing. God-mode Hulk would've made the conflict boring. It also highlighted the power of the Gauntlet. That simply using the gauntlet literally kills all mortals besides Hulk and Thanos. And even then, it severely wounds you. Bitch Hulk is a good thing.

It also established Thanos as a true badass, with or without the glove.

Which was a good thing. God-mode Hulk would've made the conflict boring. It also highlighted the power of the Gauntlet. That simply using the gauntlet literally kills all mortals besides Hulk and Thanos. And even then, it severely wounds you. b**** Hulk is a good thing.

The hell it is...the Comic Version did not need to ruin the Hulk to hype up Thanos...and the Gauntlet's BS self sabotage power has always been so stupid...its suppose to be the most powerful thing in the universe but its not powerful enough to protect the wielder from harm? I hate that it was just made up so that RDJ could kill himself and Thanos at the same time and go out" As the god of the MCU".

I think he's right, but it's because of the diminishing box office returns for Superhero movies in 2024 compared to the last two decades.

People get tired of things, I think people are tired of superheroes right now.

Necronmon posted...

The hell it is...the Comic Version did not need to ruin the Hulk to hype up Thanos...and the Gauntlet's BS self sabotage power has always been so stupid...i

Yes it does. Comic Version Hulk works because you get to have 200+ weekly/monthly issues devoted to the Infinity War saga, lasting 3 months in order to resolve the conflict.

Whereas in the MCU, you get less than SIX fucking hours to resolve the character developments of 20-30 different fucking heroes. The Infinity Gauntlet movies would NOT have been interesting if we had Souped Up Hulk overshadowing 30 other heroes.

There's a reason why MCU Iron Man > Comic book Iron Man. Because the movie writers didn't think like you.
Think with your fucking head man.

Billyionaire posted...

By "pricey" he means "not profitable enough"

For once youre right.

Necronmon posted...

its suppose to be the most powerful thing in the universe but its not powerful enough to protect the wielder from harm?

So you prefer the actual Infinity War saga storyline where Thanos fucking wins and does everything because he's in love with Lady Death, and the only reason the heroes won was because of mystical Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer and Galactus bullshit. Some inter-dimensional universe shit where 30 other heroes don't really matter?

There's a reason why comic book version characters exist that they do, and movie versions are different. Some things translate better in print, over weekly issues, or animated episodes, over the course of entire years. Other things can only translate better in 140 minute cinematic shows. Feel free to write a better movie and give it to Kevin Feige.

Torgo posted...

I think he's right, but it's because of the diminishing box office returns for Superhero movies in 2024 compared to the last two decades.

People get tired of things, I think people are tired of superheroes right now.

All of the superhero movies that tanked were bad

Necronmon posted...

The hell it is...the Comic Version did not need to ruin the Hulk to hype up Thanos.

Just from what I remember in the comics, the green regular Dr. Banner Hulk was so OP it kind of felt like a little kid describing their imagined hero and how it escalates and new powers get added for no reason, or in response to any proposed obstacle or villain.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

Kid: "And then he is super strong! and he's really big, and nothing hurts him..."
Adult: "But flying enemies or a villain with a laser beam could get him"
Kid: "No he can clap or stomp and it makes waves to fight with!"
Adult: "Oh so you would have to take over his mind with mind control powers!"
Kid: "No, his mind is immune to mind control"
Adult: "So draw him under water or into space"
Kid: "No, he can survive without air"
etc...

Blue_Popo posted...

All of the superhero movies that tanked were bad

The Marvels is sitting at 62% on Rotten Tomatoes. Are fresh movies now bad?

What makes Marvel movies so expensive anyways? All they do is stand in front of a green screen and use CGI

Is it the CGI that's expensive?

ClayGuida posted...

The Marvels is sitting at 62% on Rotten Tomatoes. Are fresh movies now bad?

I don't really agree or disagree with Blue_Popo - but review aggregate sites aren't really worth much beyond an impression of popular opinion.

But to support your case, how much of that was caused by online right wingers, incels, and mysogynists hating on these movies without ever seeing them?

So you prefer the actual Infinity War saga storyline where Thanos f***ing wins and does everything because he's in love with Lady Death, and the only reason the heroes won was because of mystical Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer and Galactus bulls***. Some inter-dimensional universe s*** where 30 other heroes don't really matter?

Thanos still lost in the comics without the Gaunlet having the movie's weakness...it just required more planning then Thanos destroying the gems himself and them just beating a earlier version as a cop out.

Look, i GET that they were not going to have Thanos be beaten by anyone then the stars...but they STILL could have introduced Adam Warlock earlier...and had him and the Avengers work together.

Its even worst with how it went in Endgame because Thanos won...and they just pulled some BS time travel and beat a weaker Thanos entirely because without throwing in Past thanos there would be no climax but the fact is its a version that they just met and thus neuters the impact.

There were plenty of ways they could have done it without ruining the Hulk but they wanted to punish the ones they did not have full rights over.

trivialbeing posted...

What makes Marvel movies so expensive anyways? All they do is stand in front of a green screen and use CGI
Is it the CGI that's expensive?

Good CGI, yes, of course. There's also spending for big name movie stars who get pay increases for doing the sequels.

Look at Spiderverse. Even CGI animation art now costs a lot. It cost $150 million to produce Across the Spiderverse.

Torgo posted...

I don't really agree or disagree with Blue_Popo - but review aggregate sites aren't really worth much beyond an impression of popular opinion.

But to support your case, how much of that was caused by online right wingers, incels, and mysogynists hating on these movies without ever seeing them?

There's no support or defending, my point is, generally a good movie is decided by how it's viewed. A majority of critics thought the movie was not bad.

It's one thing to talk about Madame Web or any other film that's rocking 1#% on RT, but pretending that something that's fresh is somehow 'bad' is silly. Just because you didn't like something, doesn't make it bad.

Necronmon posted...

Thanos still lost in the comics without the Gaunlet having the movie's weakness.

He lost because of interdimensional mystical bullshit led by Adam Warlock -- which would not have translated well at all.

trivialbeing posted...

What makes Marvel movies so expensive anyways? All they do is stand in front of a green screen and use CGI

Is it the CGI that's expensive?

With how many people are involved in crafting it, yes. Same with AAA video game development. Look at the credits for the Star Wars prequels and the massive list they have dedicated to technical staff.

The industries did it to themselves. They decided graphics were all that mattered, thus inflating production costs ludicrously, and then they need to sell millions of copies/reach huge box office numbers just to break even.

The other large cost is the idiotic salaries actors are paid, but thats another topic.

ArkhamOrigins posted...

Cause they would have to hire Bana and Norton back for a multiverse Hulk thingy

lmao sad but true

ClayGuida posted...

There's no support or defending, my point is, generally a good movie is decided by how it's viewed. A majority of critics thought the movie was not bad.

It's one thing to talk about Madame Web or any other film that's rocking 1#% on RT, but pretending that something that's fresh is somehow 'bad' is silly. Just because you didn't like something, doesn't make it bad.

I think we agree mostly. I just don't like critic review aggregate sites in general... they aren't a good substitute for checking out a real review from a person that can express and write their opinions well... they don't even have to be from some legacy media outfit.

Necronmon posted...

Its even worst with how it went in Endgame because Thanos won...and they just pulled some BS time travel and beat a weaker Thanos entirely because without throwing in Past thanos there would be no climax but the fact is its a version that they just met and thus neuters the impact.

Time traveling Endgame was actually awesome if you think about it. Using Back to the Future nod in order to evoke feelings of nostalgia to reward MCU fans watching 10 years of movies was actually perfect. The Endgame storyline may not have been great for comic book fans, but IT WAS PERFECT for MCU fans -- and that's what it was meant for.

He lost because of interdimensional mystical bulls*** led by Adam Warlock -- which would not have translated well at all.

Was it really worst then Thanos destroying himself...then the Advengers making up time travel out of no where and them only beating a weaker Thanos they just met entirely so that RDJ could go out as the star logic be damned?

Cause they would have to hire Bana and Norton back for a multiverse Hulk thingy

Don't forget Lou Ferrigno

Necronmon posted...

Was it really worst then Thanos destroying himself...then the Advengers making up time travel out of no where and them only beating a weaker Thanos they just met entirely so that RDJ could go out as the star logic be damned?

Yes, time traveling Avengers was actually a genius move, now that I've had time to think about it.
a) The whole movie was meant to be an epilogue/conclusion to reward 10 years, 18 movies of MCU fandom. The nostalgia callbacks in Endgame was a perfect way to encapsulate it.

b) It allowed for the multiverse to exist. Regardless of how they've executed the Multiverse saga so far, you have to admit that Endgame creating the multiverse was a genius move.

Tenlaar posted...

I was actually thinking this at first and checked, Hulk is only on screen for like nine minutes of Ragnarok.

The entire planet Sakaar portion of the movie was a Hulk storyline. Obviously wasn't hyper literally talking about one specific character's screentime.

I liked the time travel in Endgame. It was a nice way to revisit a bunch of the previous movies and get cameos from characters we wouldn't have gotten to see again otherwise.

Also, the conversation between Thor and Frigga is one of my favorite scenes in all of the MCU.

ClayGuida posted...

The Marvels is sitting at 62% on Rotten Tomatoes. Are fresh movies now bad?

62 may not be bad but it doesnt guarantee success. I should say bad or mid...i thought marvels was 62% worthy.

Pretty much every mcu movie with a 70% and up made money. 80% has been guaranteed bank.

If the hulk movie is good, itll make money

He knows they wouldnt be able to stop themselves from over doing the CGI

ArkhamOrigins posted...

Cause they would have to hire Bana and Norton back for a multiverse Hulk thingy

Lol that would be hilarious.

Technically wasn't there even a comic with a hulk of multiple personalities? And a hulk color for each? They could do that with them :P

Make it like Iron Man 3 where most of the focus on Banner and Hulk only show up when necessary.

lydiaquayle posted...

That's the whole point. It's going to take just as much money, if not more, to produce Quantumania, but they don't want the risk that Hulk only grosses as much as a mediocre performing movie.

They spent $275M, only to gross $476M
The CGI needed for Hulk will be much higher, because it's probably going to be set in less fantastical world, and they need to use more detail to highlight the Hulk transformations.

So it's going to cost $400-500M to produce. So now the question is whether you think the Hulk can gross $1 billion worldwide, in a post-COVID setting?

There's something a bit wrong with Disney if they can't figure out how to make a Hulk movie for less than $500 million while Fox (a studio they now own) could make War for the Planet of the Apes with primarily CGI characters for $150 million.

I think their distribution rights being with Paramount is the biggest factor anyway.

Punished_Blinx posted...

There's something a bit wrong with Disney if they can't figure out how to make a Hulk movie for less than $500 million while Fox (a studio they now own) could make War for the Planet of the Apes with primarily CGI characters for $150 million.

Is it full CGI? or did they use monkey face models and alter some details around it? But, anyway, I can imagine it's a lot easier to draw CGI monkeys than it is to draw a realistic looking closeup of a green humanoid with skin pores, sweat, and muscles rippling and expanding during the Hulk transformations. You said it yourself, Apes cost less to make than Quantumania, or even Across the Spiderverse. Perhaps you're right though, a lot of the budget could just be licensing crap.

I don't like the Incredible Hulk. I hate him for jobbing out Hulk Hogan, for destroying the carrier from True Lies, and for being Joss Whedon's self-insert character.

But I have to feel bad for Hulk fans on this one. Mark Ruffalo is one of the few guys to stick around and play the character indefinitely. You're telling me he can't get a solo movie as the character that he's played for nearly two decades now?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0acebf67.jpg