Why A Solo Marvel Hulk Movie Is Incredibly Unlikely, According To Mark Ruffalo

A common complaint about the post-"Endgame" era of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that so few of the original Avengers team are still around. Black Widow, Iron Man, and the original Captain America are all dead, and the latter two were basically the main characters of the franchise. Most of the post-"Endgame" movies have tried to establish new franchise leads that can measure up to the old ones, but nobody's quite on their level. It doesn't help that Thor and the new Captain America's latest movies were disappointments, and Hawkeye's TV show failed to make much of an impact. 

When it comes to how the MCU can recapture the vibes of its early years, it's hard not to wonder: why not make another Hulk movie? Mark Ruffalo's Hulk was in the first "Avengers" film and has appeared in countless MCU projects since then, but he's always been relegated to a supporting role. Why not put him in the lead? If a superhero as silly as "Ant-Man" can get three of his own movies, why can't Ruffalo's Hulk get one? 

In a recent interview with GQ, Ruffalo explained that a Hulk-led movie was unlikely because of a distribution rights issue: "I don't know if you know the story of that, but it's not really owned by Marvel. It's a Universal property. I don't know if it'll ever really come to be, honestly."

It's a similar situation to Spider-Man, a character whose film rights were sold to Sony in the '90s by a financially-struggling Marvel. Marvel may technically own Hulk's character, but the film would likely be distributed as a Universal Pictures film like the 2008 movie was. And while Spider-Man is considered a financially viable-enough character to be worth all these headaches, it's not clear if the Hulk is too.  

In his GQ interview, Ruffalo continued, "There's been so many Hulk movies already, it's like, does anyone really want another one? But I'd love one, and I do think the audiences would be into it if we could crack the nut of it."

A good Hulk-led film does admittedly sound hard to pull off. For Ruffalo's Hulk specifically, the issue is that his character has gone through so much development throughout his supporting roles that it's hard to know where else to take him. Ruffalo's Bruce Banner has seemingly conquered his anger issues; he's no longer a normal guy who accidentally transforms into a raging monster, but someone who's successfully fused the two personalities for one stable, smart half-Hulk figure. How do you make a compelling movie about a guy who's already reached such an enlightened state?

Perhaps the more pressing issue for Universal and Marvel is that neither the 2003 nor the 2008 Hulk films were particularly successful. Both received mixed reviews and drew in disappointing box office earnings; neither of their lead actors returned to take up the role of Bruce Banner again, and viewers didn't seem too sad to see them go. It feels like Marvel Studios and Universal are in agreement that the Hulk is best left as a supporting character. If they were to take the risk and give Hulk his own movie, they'd better make sure to give it a truly strong, fresh angle.