The Hulk's Incredibly Complex Movie Rights Explained

It's no secret the Hulk has been a vital part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, making several appearances throughout the years in films for Thor, the Avengers, as well as a "She-Hulk" series. But many fans may be wondering why the jade giant hasn't gotten the solo treatment in the first four phases of the MCU, except for the 2008 flick "The Incredible Hulk." The reason for the massive emerald hero not getting more time in the spotlight on his own has to do with the movie rights to the character.

While the Hulk is a persona that most certainly falls under the comic book publisher's banner, Marvel Studios and Disney, unfortunately, haven't had the ability to make a solo "Hulk" movie focusing on Bruce Banner's alter ego because Universal has been pulling the strings with the character's cinematic fate since the '90s. Producers Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd began development on a "Hulk" motion picture in 1990 for Universal Pictures, the original rights owner to the live-action version of the character. Several concepts, writers, directors, and actors were considered for the project, but according to Variety, in 1998, the studio, having already sunk $20 million into the development of the ambitious project, decided to halt their efforts until the early 2000s. It was then unveiled that Ang Lee would direct, with Eric Bana set to play the titular hero in the 2003 "Hulk" movie produced and distributed by Universal.

After earning $245 million off of a $137 million budget, a sequel was in the works, but things would go down differently this time around as the conundrum surrounding various rights and licensing for the character would start to unfold.

According to a 2006 report from Variety, producer Avi Arad revealed that Marvel Studios had reacquired the rights to "Hulk" movies from Universal because that studio had failed to meet the deadline for production on the follow-up to the 2003 feature. The plan at that time was to make the "Hulk" sequel a direct-to-video project that would forgo any need for theatrical distribution.

However, it was later reported by Ain't It Cool News that the direct-to video-option was no longer being pursued as Avi Arad had confirmed that the follow-up film destined for cinemas would be produced by Marvel Studios this time and Universal would continue to handle the distribution.

When it came time to make the next chapter in the Hulk legacy, the 2008 motion picture "The Incredible Hulk," the decision was made to stay away from Ang Lee's vision seen in the 2003 flick and take things in a different direction for the character with a separate tone and design for the character. Edward Norton replaced Eric Bana as the titular character, with Louis Lettier chosen to sit in the director's chair. Off an estimated $150 million budget, the film earned $264 million, the lowest of any entry from the MCU.

While Norton would not reprise the role, the Hulk continued to be an impactful presence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with Mark Ruffalo taking over the part in the "Avengers" films and "Thor: Ragnarok." But since the MCU started, almost every major character has gotten their own solo affair except the Jade Giant. And the reasoning behind why fans haven't been able to see the big green machine in his own movie may cause readers to reach Hulk levels of anger.

Fans may be under the impression that Marvel is unable to make a "Hulk" movie due to licensing issues. However, that is not the case. Since the MCU started, Marvel has been able to make a Bruce Banner-based flick and include the character in other projects.

While it's been no problem adding him to other movies, things get complicated regarding a "Hulk" solo flick. If the Hulk character's name is used in the movie's title, then Marvel Studios is legally obligated to give the distribution rights of the project to Universal. This would entail splitting box office profits between the two parties. This is why Hulk has only appeared in other characters' films or "Avengers" flicks, allowing Marvel not to have to share any of the profits.

And it seems that Universal hasn't been willing to accommodate Marvel Studios when it comes to making a "Hulk" standalone picture over time. In a red carpet interview with Variety, Mark Ruffalo laid out the situation pretty clearly for fans, saying, "A standalone Hulk movie will never happen because Universal has the rights to the Hulk Standalone movie and they don't know how to play nice with Marvel and they don't want to make money."

While the actor's doubts that a solo "Hulk" motion picture will ever occur surely felt like a gamma-radiated punch to the gut, fans shouldn't get angry because there is evidence that suggests Ruffalo's prediction is inaccurate.

Many are arguably under the impression that the chances of a solo "Hulk" movie happening in the MCU have been snapped to dust by Universal's distribution gauntlet. But nothing lasts forever, and it seems that the reign of Universal Pictures' contractual ties to the character is coming to an end.

According to a 2005 SEC filing, the terms for Universal's hold on the live-action theatrical distribution rights to the character were scheduled to last a total of 15 years. For those that aren't aware, it's already been 15 years since the release of "The Incredible Hulk" in June 2008. It's rumored that the distribution rights that Universal has had for so long would finally revert back to Marvel, allowing the House of Mouse the ability to move forward with any solo "Hulk" endeavor they choose.

Despite several aspects from the character's comic book run being implemented in many of the MCU's films, there is still an abundance of great storylines to adapt for a standalone picture, and there is no telling what will happen next for the Hulk. With "The Incredible Hulk" finally making its way to Disney+ in June 2023 and the news that the chances of a solo film have never been better, there is no denying it's a smashing good time to be a fan of the giant jade hero.