The Incredible Hulk is not becoming universally loved. This saddens me, for better or worse, because film is technically the closest I have to an area of expertise and I have a lot of comic geekery in my past, so when the two meet in a venn-diagram sort of a way, I am a happy happy person. I enjoyed Iron Man - even if it was the beginning of a Beautiful Franchise Opportunity - because it was new, and to my knowledge hadn't been done in television or film - apart from animated serials - before.

But with TIH, there's a lot of weird baggage. Alright, if you'd followed Iron Man from the beginning in comics form, there was a lot of weirdness there - including the "let's go back in time and bring teenage Tony Stark back to replace his now burnt-out alcoholic self, because this in no way creates a paradox", along with all the trappings of an approximately fifty-year continuity spread across hundreds of books by many different writers - but with the Hulk, there's an odd purity of material.

This is, because, and let's be frank and face it here, the Incredible Hulk is Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Stan Lee even admitted this once, to my knowledge, in an interview; he said it was Dr Jekyll mixed with atomic paranoia, and the resulting book captured the imaginations of millions of people. Now, forty-six years later, Hulk is not only the strongest one there is, he also has the same continuity issues that most Marvel characters of the sixties carry with them like fashionable baggage, but he also has a fondly remembered TV series - the theme of which, sidebar, has been licenced for the latest film, but you probably already know about "The Lonely Man Theme" - and prior convictions with the 2003 Hulk - note, not Incredible - film.

Which wasn't, in my opinion, half as bad as people make it out to be. Yes, the plot meandered, and yes, two hours and eighteen minutes is somewhat too long for an origin story of this character in particular. But Hulk wasn't a bad film - hell, have you seen the released cut of Daredevil? If so, see the directors cut, really, really soon - it was just nothing like what the nebulous public wanted, annoyed the critics by being overly clever when it could have got by just as easily by being dumb, and needed more fighty-smashy instead of father-son quality time resulting in Nick Nolte turning into a giant electrical being and then being defeated by - well, I have my theories, but it wasn't exactly clear quite how a being with the ability to turn into anything it was touching could be defeated by a creature whose main ability is to hit stuff really hard, but let's just gloss over this for now.

Gloss with me, gloss with me. Just close your eyes, and gloss with me.

Anyway, Hulk was clever, and it was one of the first-gen Marvel titles, back when they still farmed out their films to bigger companies. But times change, and now Marvel makes it's own films - now only farming them out for distribution - and, to be frank, I don't think Marvel Studios could actually give a flying fuck in the same way that big movie studios did worry about their commercial product.

Let's return to Daredevil for a moment. The cinema cut is drab, and annoying, in so many ways, and even includes the cheesiest fireside love-scene I think I have ever seen. It's annoying, and oddly crass. The director's cut, however, includes an entire half-an-hour subplot which actually fleshes out Matt Murdock and Foggy Nelson's lawyer sides, rather than just having this as a thin, strained counterpoint to Ben Affleck in shiny red leather beating the hell out of criminals. The director's cut makes much more of an attempt to bring moral relativism into the film, as opposed to four-colour punch-fests. Bear in mind, also, that Marvel plans a sequel as soon as the rights lapse from 20th Century Fox back to the company which could, to be fair, be too late for anyone to really worry.

Seriously, though, Marvel Studios making their own films could simultaneously be the best thing and the worst thing ever. The best, because they don't have to put up with quite the level of creative interference dictated by a studio which needs a guaranteed 200% or 300% return on it's investment - Marvel needs to turn a profit, sure, but they seem to know just about where to set the line between pleasing the investors and pleasing their core audience - i.e. blockbuster lovers and, frankly, otaku level geeks. Because - sidebar - comics are now an entirely different proposition to twenty years ago; they're no longer just for kids, as they were once believed to be. In fact, I'm not entirely certain children per se read them any more - the core demographic must have shifted, because now I swear it's double-digit reader age time, from 10 upward to, well, whenever.

Marvel Studios making their own films, though, has the potential to be a bad move because if one film tanks - and I mean, really tanks, not just bad-opening-weekend, but completely balls to the wall - then there's potential for trouble. Because, basically, it's an accumulator bet; Iron Man was a winner, and made enough money to guarantee Iron Man 2. But if a film from Marvel Studios goes completely balls from hereon in, then that affects the commercial viability of further products down the line. IF The Incredible Hulk does really badly, or fails to recoup it's budget, then things get relatively tricky, relatively quickly.

Because, frankly, let's take a moment out to look at the list of films that Marvel Studios have optioned, according to wikipedia;

Optioned

* Nick Fury - Distributed by Paramount Pictures - Writer Andrew Marlowe engaged - Samuel L. Jackson engaged, has cameo as Fury in Iron Man
* Runaways - Distributed by Paramount Pictures - Writer Brian K. Vaughn engaged
* Black Panther - Distributed by 20th Century Fox
* Dr.Strange - Distributed by Paramount Pictures
* Hawkeye - Distributed by Paramount Pictures
* Shang-Chi - Distributed by Paramount Pictures
* Cloak and Dagger - Distributed by Paramount Pictures
* Power Pack - Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Nick Fury I kind of get, because Sam L Jackson is up for it, having already given his blessing for his likeness to be used in the Ultimates series, lord love it. And Runaways could be perfection, especially if they capture the 'early-season-Buffy' vibe that made the series so readable. I also kind of understand Hawkeye, as a kind of bad-guy-makes-good crossed with the critically under-represented Sniper Movie genre (Shooter, Assassins and Enemy at the Gates are the only ones that spring to mind) and, in a way, Shang-Chi could be a beautiful cross between Hong Kong Kung Fu and Marvel Comics films. The last two, however, seem relatively bizarre.

But I realise the futility of commenting on anything until it's been made. I think Marvel Studios are doing their best to build up an unassailable, unstoppable bulwark of momentum, and I hope they manage it. Not least because they give me lots to write about.

Anyway - and let's be crude here - fuck the naysayers. I'm going to see The Incredible Hulk, bad reviews or no. And it may be good, or it may suck like a dyson, but either way, I still want to see how one of my favourite childhood heroes turns out on screen.

Wait, I already saw that five years ago.

Ok, So I want to see how one of my favourite childhood heroes turns out on screen again. Not quite as punchy, I grant you, but studios these days have no respect for continuity...

*

I'd like to take a minute out, also, to recommend In Bruges; it's not perfect, but it's impressive, and the characterisation is beautiful, even if Ralph Fiennes missteps occasionally. The swearing, also, is enough to make me rejoice and question how the hell it got made. However; "Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf - sod this, I'm off to bed..."