It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's the exclusion of the first Hulk that seems kind of "off".
However, I think the distinction that is being made here, is this notion of the official "Marvel Cinematic Universe" which launched with Ironman in 2008. So be it.
However, as Incredible Hulk producer Gale Anne Hurd explains, Hulk 2 wasn't quite a full re-boot. She calls it a "requel" :)
"Shortly after the release of The Incredible Hulk, Gale Anne Hurd commented on the uncertainty of its relationship with Ang Lee's Hulk film. "We couldn't quite figure out how to term this ... It's kind of a reboot and it's kind of sequel." Hurd said that "requel", a portmanteau of "reboot" and "sequel", was a "perfect" description for the film."
What continuity is there between the two films?
Hulk Origin -
2003: Experiment in the 70s, experiment in 2003 + accidental gamma exposure
2008: recreation of the Super Soldier Serum + intentional gamma exposure
Hulk himself -
2003: Hulk grows each time; Hulk can't speak
2004: Hulk the same size each time; Hulk can speak
The only thing the two films share is the characters, and that's because they're based on the same source material.
She's talking about how it picks up in the jungle clime with Banner in hiding, which is where we last saw Banner at the end of the Ang Lee film.
Edward Norton, once he was cast, re-wrote Zack Penn's original sequel script, and created a new back-story via flashbacks and revelations, thus making the film essentially a re-boot, even if it started as a sequel.
The continuity with the original is that it picks up with Banner hiding in South America, which is where the Ang Lee film left off.....but yes it's basically a re-boot. It's not really a sequel at all. There is just a limp attempt at very tenuous continuity with it's predecessor.
You are hilarious, Mr Ice. I'm sure that they were big fother in the 1960s and 1970s. Plus they too were made at Pinewood Studios. I remember seeing a fictionalised TV series on the personalities behind the Carry Ons in 2001 or so where they were filming a Carry On and Oddjob was seen in the background while filming Goldfinger. I'll have to start collecting them as I only have Carry On Spying on DVD (for obvious reasons).
Exactly. How does one define a "franchise"?
Simply films made about the same character? If so, we can count Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp and any films featuring various remakes of the same source material (Wizard of Oz, for example)
Films made about the same character and by the same production company / distributor? That seems messy as Superman and Terminator, to name just two, have changed ownership between films. Even franchises that have been made by the same company throughout, we face the problem of Theseus's Paradox (or, if you prefer, Trigger's Broom) if they're long-running.
Films about the same character but set in the same continuity? We would have to carve up Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Planet of the Apes and, arguably, Star Trek as all have rebooted.
Very true. Being the cynic I am, your reasoning above is why I don't take any notice of such stats. Everyone seems to be obsessed with lists. I couldn't give a rat's cock quite frankly. It only results in making fanboys more unbearable than they already are. On a lighter note, good to see Bond putting everyone in their place ;)