Then there is the obvious fourth (and most likely) option; simply make a sequel with a much lighter, less self-consciously arty tone, and market it that way so that no one misses the point. That’s my interpretation of the original “do-over” comments. A new Hulk movie could get straight into the high-octane smashing with barely a nod to the original–without needing to contradict it. Remaking the Hulk’s origin is pointless if the goal of the movie is wall-to-wall, dumb-fun action. I can see the snarky commercial now: two cowboys sharing a quiet moment up on the mountain, which the Hulk suddenly smashes into rubble.

To be honest, I thought the Ang Lee film merely pointed out the obvious, that the Hulk is a Division Three character trying to play in Division One. There’s a reason the book got cancelled after six issues in ’62, then revived as an anthology feature and only relaunched into a successful solo book once Marvel had achieved critical mass as a publisher. (Of course, the culture had also temporarily shifted toward misunderstood anti-heroes in the late 60′s, making Hulk more relevant.) There’s a reason why the book gets restarted every few years. It’s a famous license, but it can barely carry its own weight as a concept. I think the Hulk was most entertaining as a journeyman antagonist roaming the various Marvel books in 1963 abnd 1964.