4 ms·
How about noticing that the article tossed the tepid Ed Norton HULK film (Marvel film #2) down the memory hole altogether? It does reference The Hulk in the co
by roc 12y ago
How about noticing that the article tossed the tepid Ed Norton HULK film (Marvel film #2) down the memory hole altogether?
It does reference The Hulk in the context of the license to Universal. But Marvel regained the film rights in 2006 and Universal was just a distribution partner on Norton-Hulk. It was much more a Marvel Studios film than any sort of Universal-driven successor to Bana-Hulk.
Nor does it ever mention Agents of SHIELD by name. To omit the name after specifically discussing the TV appearance clauses is pretty poor form for a journalist, particularly one who dedicated so much ink to the "Universe" strategy.
But I guess facing Marvel's mis-steps just didn't fit a "Marvel is unstoppable" storyline.
- vampirechicken 12y agoPerhaps you should not assume shoddy work on the journalist's part. The nits you pick could have been created by editors prior to publication.
- roc 12y agoYou're absolutely right. I was wrong to carelessly specify fault in the journalist, rather than simply faulting the piece. However: If I had correctly identified that the piece was shoddy, rather than the journalist, wouldn't materially impact the points in my post. That's a nit. Including Marvel's existing mis-steps would materially impact the points of an article recounting Marvel's lack of mis-steps. That is not a nit.