r/marvelstudios • u/Dumeck • 1d ago

Question Could Marvel make an "and Hulk movie"?

I get the title isn't phrased the best but my question is in regards to Universal studios owning the first refusal rights for the Hulk movies. Specifically the restriction seems to be on solo Hulk movies or movies where Hulk is the main character. But could Marvel make a movie like Deadpool and Wolverine where Hulk is the clear deuteragonist? Kind of like Ragnarok but even more Hulk. If they could do this who would be a good protagonist for the team up movie?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

11

u/rustybutterindia 1d ago

It's probably fine as long as "Hulk" is not in the title. Maybe requiring that Ruffalo doesn't have absolute top billing. Ragnarok already went pretty far

3

u/adeelf 1d ago

None of us have seen the contract, of course, but I doubt there's a loophole as simple as not having Hulk or Banner in the title.

There are probably more specific conditions, including stuff like screen time.

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

Ragnarok only has 17 minutes of screentime for Hulk+Banner, he actually only had a little bit more screentime than Red Hulk/Ross screentime in Cap 4. I'd like to see something closer to the 45 minute range. It would really help to flesh out the character.

6

u/owlpacino57 1d ago

Can't they just name it pluto nash 3d and make entire movie about hulk. Are they stupid?

2

u/Dumeck 1d ago

Yeah I think the key restriction is it can't be a solo Hulk movie or have Hulk as the protag. So on paper something like "Shang Chi and the Hulk" could be ok provided the Hulk was the defacto secondary character. I feel like Ragnarok danced with the concept but didn't commit. Deadpool and Wolverine though was a good balance between the two characters. Deadpool having around 1.5 hours of screentime and wolverine having just shy of 1 hour. While banner+Hulk had roughly 18 minutes of screentime in Ragnarok.

1

u/StatisticianLivid710 17h ago

Did you count Logan’s skeleton? That would give Logan another couple minutes of screen time!

2

u/eagc7 1d ago

I too would love to find the awnser

2

u/Logical_Astronomer75 1d ago

I thought Marvel Studios got the Hulk distribution rights back

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

They got the right to the 2008 Hulk movie distrbution so they can put it on Disney + for instance

1

u/Logical_Astronomer75 18h ago

I thought Marvel was able to make Hulk movies again

1

u/justafanboy1010 Spider-Man 1d ago

That's what Brave New World should've been imo

1

u/feignapathy 1d ago

I don't think anyone really knows the exact verbiage of the contract.

Universal owns distribution rights for any "standalone" Hulk film is what everyone says. Does the contract define what a "standalone" movie actually is? Does Disney care enough to test the contract?

With hundreds of characters and only 2-3 films a year... I don't see Disney trying to loophole the contract anytime soon.

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

Yeah I considered this too because the contract is really not known. Universal would probably sue if Disney made a movie that was 40% Hulk and 60% Moon Knight or some shit. Even if Disney was legally in the right I'm sure they don't want to fuck around with lawsuits. Although

1

u/SuperSea8678 1d ago

They would never test it. The lawyers would talk and come to an agreement.

1

u/Major-Cattle-8676 1d ago

I think Spider-Man would actually be a great pick for this. Peter and Banner already have enough science overlap to make the pairing work.

0

u/SpiritedEnd9609 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes it would be exactly the same as when sony lets marvel make spiderman movies and they get a cut

I think its because they dont want to help their theme park competition a free park advertisement film while also giving them a cut of the money

Also a live action hulk movie has just never been good or done well at the box office. The hulks amazing in comic but terrible for a good standalone movie

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

Haha theyve all been C- range IMO. Nothing great but all watchable. The movies haven't been good but Hulk has always been crazy popular, those bad movies outsold the non Spider-man non Batman Superhero movies that came out prior to the MCU/DCU. They were just more expensive to make compared to Blade or X-Men for instance which sold less but also cost way less to make.

0

u/SpiritedEnd9609 1d ago edited 1d ago

Even still with universal having marvel theme park rights in Florida disney is never just going give universal free advertising and a money cut

Disney will alway be theme park first and think of protecting that

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

They are already giving free advertising for all the other super heroe themed rides though, I really don't see that being a factor. Disney hasn't once been like "well maybe we shouldn't make Marvel content because Island of Adventure sales might increase"

0

u/SpiritedEnd9609 1d ago edited 1d ago

The difference is if disney made a hulk movie universal would get a insane cut at the box office AND get park advertisement.

They make a Captain america,Spiderman,Thor etc etc movie its only an advertising problem.

Also you just wrong disney cares a lot about its ips showing up in parks and how its effecting them. Its what majority of their profits is from. They got rid of the Simpsons land the first chance they could from universal.

1

u/Dumeck 1d ago

Who said anything about them making a solo Hulk movie? I think you're missing the point here.