Beta Ray Bill would never work - nobody would take a cybernetic alien Horse seriously. The MCU Asgardians aren't Gods so the idea of their Ragnorak/Apocalypse doesn't quite have the same feel anyway IMO. I honestly don't find the idea of Thor Rangnorak particularly appealing - I'm more excited for Civil War as I imagine most people are (its got the more popular characters, Earth is more interesting etc) even with Hulk in the mix so I'm not sure that this would have been some guaranteed mega-hit/standout Marvel film, especially after TDW.
Lastly the motivation behind putting Hulk in Ragnorak undoubtedly was to make the movie more appealing - the idea that Marvel is desperately trying to fit Hulk in as many films as possible is pretty stupid since they've been very comfortable not using him before. From all accounts his/Banner's role in Civil War was pretty small before it was dropped in favour of this. I wish he just skipped both films and showed up again in Infinity War if people are going to be so upset by the idea. That would suit me just fine.
As it's already been discussed, the audiences are willing to accept a talking tree and a talking raccoon who are both done with CGI and they're the standout stars of GoTG, why would audiences be so less receptive to a cyborg horse looking alien who is worthy of wielding Mjolnir? That's a badass concept and if it were handled right, Beta Ray Bill could be made into an awesome character for the MCU. The Asgardians may essentially be aliens with more advanced technology and were perceived to be gods by the humans but I don't see how that diminishes the significance Ragnarok poses for them. It's hinted to be a major threat and danger in the limited allusions the Thor films have made to it and the Asgardians are known across the universe so Asgard's destruction would have an impact on the MCU. I'll agree I'm looking forward more to Civil War than Ragnarok too but this did have the potential to redeem the Thor franchise and be a good Thor film. The presence of Hulk, although it might be fun, diminishes the Ragnarok side of the plot.
I disagree there, I find it far more obvious that Marvel is trying to fit Hulk in as many films as possible without using him in a single film, to which Universal still hold distribution rights. Also, considering that Feige, Whedon and several other MCU representatives have said a Hulk solo film would be difficult, at least for them, that highlights how they aren't comfortable using Hulk unless he's part of another picture. Which isn't Ruffalo's fault, he gives a great performance as Bruce Banner and his mo cap Hulk is an incredible feat of special effects, it's really Marvel who need to sort out their depiction of Hulk in the MCU.
As it's already been discussed, the audiences are willing to accept a talking tree and a talking raccoon who are both done with CGI and they're the standout stars of GoTG, why would audiences be so less receptive to a cyborg horse looking alien who is worthy of wielding Mjolnir?
As said previously:
- The GOTG comparison is a bad one IMO - half the point of GOTG, an action-comedy, is that there were absurd things like a sentient tree, humanoid Raccoon, a guy who couldnt understand figurative speech etc. While there has been comedy in the Thor movies most people feel that its something they want to get away from & I doubt Ragnorak is where people want to go really light-hearted
- Its a whole other origin and story you have to introduce
- Following on from that you have to sell the extreme brotherhood between Thor and BRB developing in a single movie and limited screentime
- And just for the hell of it - does a cybernetic horse really have any more business being in a movie about Asgardian Ragnorak than the Hulk?
That's a badass concept and if it were handled right, Beta Ray Bill could be made into an awesome character for the MCU. The Asgardians may essentially be aliens with more advanced technology and were perceived to be gods by the humans but I don't see how that diminishes the significance Ragnarok poses for them.
Its not about diminishing the significance - in the myths and most of the comics Asgard was something that was fated to be, something unavoidable and deeply tied to the fact that they were mythical, mystical creatures. Its a lot harder to bring in the fatalistic ideas when things are played from a scientific perspective. Thus I'm pretty sure the MCU Ragnorak wont be all that similar to the Ragnorak of myth/some comics.
It's hinted to be a major threat and danger in the limited allusions the Thor films have made to it and the Asgardians are known across the universe so Asgard's destruction would have an impact on the MCU. I'll agree I'm looking forward more to Civil War than Ragnarok too but this did have the potential to redeem the Thor franchise and be a good Thor film. The presence of Hulk, although it might be fun, diminishes the Ragnarok side of the plot.
I disagree there, I find it far more obvious that Marvel is trying to fit Hulk in as many films as possible without using him in a single film, to which Universal still hold distribution rights.
Then...why wouldn't they put him in more films? Hes had a 5 second cameo after IM3 & then just the Avengers films. Feige himself said during Phase 2 that Hulk was something that you would have to see in the Avengers films. I just can't see this agenda for "as many films as possible" when hes so far been in one other Marvel movie that was announced about 2 weeks ago. While meanwhile everyone else in the MCU is in Civil War. The Universal rights wouldnt be a problem if Marvel felt determined to go ahead with a Hulk film - they would just buy them back like they did with Paramount.
Also, considering that Feige, Whedon and several other MCU representatives have said a Hulk solo film would be difficult, at least for them, that highlights how they aren't comfortable using Hulk unless he's part of another picture. Which isn't Ruffalo's fault, he gives a great performance as Bruce Banner and his mo cap Hulk is an incredible feat of special effects, it's really Marvel who need to sort out their depiction of Hulk in the MCU.
Well I pretty much agree with this. I think solo Hulk movies are particularly difficult when the character is still so primitive. A protagonist who cant speak or plan more than 5 seconds ahead isnt much fun for very long. Combined with the fact that most Hulk films are fated to be on the expensive side of things, that it costs tons of money every time Hulk even shows up on screen, and that Marvel is currently having tons of success turning obscure characters into B-list/A-list characters then theres plenty of reason not to do a Hulk movie until theres a more compelling reason.
Log in to comment