Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok. Good or Bad?

The Hulk doesn't fit any kind of Ragnarok story line in any medium...

The Hulk needs his own solo movie with themes about him...

@asgaard: Agreed. The only Avenger I can see him teaming up with outside of crossover films is Iron Man.

Like i said in other threads if the theme of the movie is Civil War, you can put there Daisy from AoS, but when the theme is the Ragnarok you just put there Asgardians, Surtur and Beta Ray Bill and if you go a little mythological maybe Fenrir...

I'm guessing some kind of Asguardian tech might separate Hulk and Banner, at least for a while

Should have added options for "awful" and "OMFG NO!"

Bad for me... Hulk has nothing to do with "Ragnarok" in anyway.. I cant think of a scenario where hulk would fit in a ragnarok story line.. with Yost writing. im afraid of the Hulk vs thor animation getting into the movie.

I think he would have been better suited to someone else's movie like dr strange or if iron man had another movie, I can't wait to see what they're going to have him doing in this film though

When I heard this news I got a real "Last Avengers Story" vibe.

Good.

Why not use the hulk in a Black Widow movie.

@arthurkerr: that could be cool. maybe have it be about Widow's old KGB handlers getting hold of a Hulk blood sample and trying to create supersoldiers with it.

i already see THOR jobbing in his own film...

Yeah I liked the chemistry between the two actors. They did well together would do even better in a team up movie.

Besides the the fact that the Hulk doesn't fit the theme of the movie, i see this the other way around, disrespectful for the Hulk (in the beginning he was the Mcu most popular character) to be just a supporting character in someone else movie, more so when that movie is not a team movie and the theme is only connected with the protagonist and his normal supporting cast, that is big and has in Loki other main character!

If we acknowledge all the movies where the character was portrayed (live action) your quote makes some sense, but i m kinda surprised how Hulk fans still like this, and specially because it's a Thor movie with Thor themes, i would hate to see Thor in more than a cameo in someone else movie...

@asgaard: While I think I kinda understand what you're saying, I disagree entirely. Thor doesn't solo-ly have to be a main/leading character or a cameo. Just like in comics, Thor isn't the main driving force in everything he's ever been a part of. Realistically it isn't as if it's either about Thor or The Avengers or Thor won't show up. Him being a supporting character in someone elses' film isn't inheritly bad.

I guess that perspective is understandable in comic book reader/fans, but doesn't work in live action, two very different mediums with very different rules and worldbuildings where the levels of insanity are also completely different, comic book fans want to see all the characters that they read stories about interact in every possible opportunity, without acknowledge that can hurt the pace/plot/theme and even the tone of the movie, if the movie is not a team movie and the theme is not inclusive like Civil War, the Hulk in the Ragnarok will just steal plot time, so that means less time to build the Antagonist motivations, the same if Thor was in a Planet Hulk movie... Again tell a story in several comic issues is very different from tell/adapt that same story in 112 minutes...

Bad.

Every bit of news that comes out about this movie just makes it sound worse and worse. I wanted a serious movie about Thor, Surtur, Odin and tons of new asgardians we haven't seen before.

Yet they get a comedy guy to direct it and add hulk because why not

@jayc1324: Yea. Thor is the only solo character Marvel can't seem to get right. If anything a good Thor film shouldn't even really be a superhero film, it should be a high fantasy film, an adventure through the Asgardian realms. I mean, what's the point of having the Thor characters and worlds if your not going to use them.

I might have chosen the Wait and See choice if there had been one but if I had to choose here, I would say it is more of a bad thing than a good thing to include Hulk in Thor Ragnarok. Technically Captain America and Iron Man did show up when Ragnarok came around in Thor's Avengers Disassembled storyline but he did send them back to Earth so they wouldn't suffer the Asgardians' fate. The rest of the story was mostly Thor featuring Thor supporting characters. Anyway, the Thor films have needed to be treated seriously and with some weight and significance to them since The Dark World They haven't had that impact, not even a negative one like Iron Man 2 and IM3.

Hulk taking Beta Ray Bill's place as the Ragnarok special guest star is very annoying to think about and it could all be because general audiences were confused about why none of the Avengers helped each other out in their solo movies. That's the crying shame of all this. It takes away from the grandeur of the end of days for the Norse Gods, it lessens what could have been Thor's The Winter Soldier movie and it's just Marvel trying to get around putting the Hulk in a movie without making a Hulk solo film. If Hulk fans try and brush this off, just remind them how aggravating it would be if Thor showed up to share screen time in a Planet Hulk movie.

Pretty much what I've been thinking since this was announced, I'm sure Hulk fans are pleased as punch their favorite character is getting screen time, forgetting how they would feel if someone not part of the story were prominently featured in a Planet Hulk movie.

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.

I wouldn't mind Thor being in a Hulk movie, and it's easier to get a character everyone loves than risking introducing a potentially ridiculous character (to the general audience, I mean).

"Ridiculous character"? The general audience was willing to accept a talking semi-psychotic raccoon and a humanoid tree that repeats his own name over and over again, surely they'd accept Betta Ray Bill.

Willing? At the moment Groot and Rocket are 2 very relevant characters for Marvel Studios, anyone doubts that GotG vol. 2 will make more than $1B in the worldwide Box office? Bill has potential to work in live action, specially if his story was connected with Surtur , Sif and Mjolnir worthiness, things that the Hulk just can't be connected with...

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. The general audience would prefer to see the Hulk from the get go, before they'd even consider giving horse face a chance.

Sometimes is hard to define where ends the fan zone and starts the general audience zone, if you ask me this in the movie industry perspective i would say that the Hulk solo numbers/reception in live action are very poor, and not the safest character to bring Hype and $ to future movies, besides his Cgi is always expensive...

Hulk was the main attraction in avengers and people have been asking for a solo movie for quite some time now. He's actually a much safer and profitable decision than Beta Ray Bill.

@theacidskull: Hulk wasn't the main attraction of the Avengers. His solo film had the lowest box office of any MCU film. People loved him when they saw him in the film, but he wasn't the main reason they wen't to see the Avengers. Also, they don't need something to attract an audience, both Thor films made quite a bit of money, it's not like the Thor films failed and there desperate for a success (though I think the second one was disappointing). And the fact is Hulk, has no connection with Thor or Asgard, nothing that could possibly be explored storywise, he really has no reason to be there.

If that was the case, (with such a key character) Disney had to buy Hulk distributions rights from universal, like they did with Iron Man, Thor and Cap (Paramount deal), remember i like the Hulk but i m discussing this only in the movie business perspective, probably there will be no Hulk solo movies in the foreseeable future, and i really don't see how the Hulk fits the Ragnarok unlike Bill, i m not sure anymore what has more weight to the box office performance in the current everything is connected era, GotG is the proof that a good movie (with unknowns) can make more money than any Superman movie, and if you ask me a good Ragnarok movie is always with Bill not the Hulk i don't see what he can add to the theme of this movie, or anything related with Asgard...

That was played for laughs and the absurdity of the situation was kind of the whole point. That can work in the Thor-verse (much of the good an bad humour has been derived from stuff like this) but its dangerous territory for a "serious" film like Thor Ragnorak. Not to mention we are supposed to introduce him, given him something approximating his comic backstory and make us care about him all before/while Ragnorak takes place. To say nothing of trying to establish the idea that he and Thor have a super-strong, brotherly bond.

If I don't get this scene I will leave the theater and boycott.

BRB 4 Life.

I would be reluctant to state Hulk was "the main attraction of the Avengers" - thats a fairly controversial statement to make. OTOH I dont think its controversial to state that for many if not most people he was one of the most appealing features of the film and contemporary reviews/reactions all noted this. That said - absolutely a Thor movie can stand on its own. Though after Cap 2/Thor 2 and whats happening in Civil war I wouldnt be surprised to see Cap 3 be quite a bit more succesful. It certainly has every advantage at this stage. Though as always it depends a great deal on how good each movie actually ends up being.

It is something notable to be reminded of since Planet Hulk is a fan favourite Hulk story and the one which fans want to be adapted into a film the most so Thor's presence in that would certainly be unwelcomed by the Hulk fanbase.

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.

I know obviously you wouldn't mate but I guarantee you that the Hulk fans who swear by Planet Hulk as their bible would be livid if the rival Thor dared to appear in a Planet Hulk movie given its importance as a comic book and as a film if it were to be made. The general audience thing has already been hashed out on here but Marvel are willing to be more ridiculous than DC's films are thus far.

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.

Thor: Ragarok is already being filmed atm. Or at least the beginning scene. Putting Hulk to the move is seriously kind of stupid. We already have a new hulk compared to Avengers and the Incredible Hulk, so we need a Hulk movie first. But problem is, Hulk is all about smashing, which would consider a lot of budget prices to do those effects and those materials to look "destroyed". Other than that, Widow and Banner already have chemistry which is going to ruin the story-line a little bit for Betty to come in play. So the movie alone about Hulk isn't going to come any time soon. And if their is a movie when Hulk comes in, I wouldn't think it would come from Thor since he already has his own team. And its debatable that Thor can beat Hulk, therefore useless to keep Hulk in a movie to "help" or "defeat".

nooo!!!! i like Hulk but he is not going to fit in the damn Ragnarok for god sake...

@blackleg: 99% chance its a vision or illusion from Loki or something