It must be nice to believe you are part of the little world that "gets it" and is "up for the challenge" rather than just someone with bad taste in movies.

I agree!

HeLL YEaH!! MIcheal bAy!! WOOT WOOT!!!1

Seriously, people are lazyannd stupid for not liking the Hulk? I'm sorry, but lots of us understood his dramatic approach, that doens't mean it worked. Drama is all fine and dandy, but you're supposed to care about the people. And considering the only characters I really gave a damn about in that movie were green, I'd say it didn't work for me.

And I don't like Michael Bay.

I greatly enjoyed the fancy split screen editing, thought the hulk looked great, thought General Ross was a fine supporting character, didn't mind most of the psychobabble, but thought the ending was completely over the top and retarded. So am I a snob for liking most of it or am I a Michael Bay fan for not liking the ending?

well...i was being a bit facetious.
if it doesn't do it for you, it doesn't do it for you.
thats just the way it is.
i think in the case of the Hulk, it was a challenge for people to empathize with a character who was emotionally cold and distant...and weak- but that was the character.
the character, as the film made clear, had a reason for being that way , and that very element was the cruxt of the story.
i feel ...disappointed(?) that so many people can't seem to put themselves in a place where they might understand how it would feel to know that you have 'bad wiring' and can't seem to do anything about it.
the enormous frustration at not having the basic social skills that most people have, and how it would impact the quality of your life.


i have this conception that all the guys that didn't like the film are the alpha males and wanna be alpha males who were great at dodge ball, and can continually satisfy themselves with shallow, physical relationships, but sneer at the idea of empathizing with someone they look at as weak since to do that might put the ju-ju on them and inhibit their bravado in the future.

i dunno.

the film wasn't perfect, but i do believe it holds together, and is crafted with care and thought and taste, but it requires, much more than an average summer movie, that you meet it 1/2 way.

If Ang Lee aint makin it...I aint interested...he made Hulk a groundbreaking movie that in a day and age when so many movies just go by a tried and true formula...Lee went the other road and made his movie his way...and I respect that...plus I love the movie to death and find it to be visually just about the best movie to look at this year and also on a subliminal level quite breathtaking...

I'm sure since the first film had too much "talking" that the sequel will just be a bunch of explosions and bad FX...which I'm not interested in seeing..

BTW...who here just loves the TV series with Bixby and Ferrigno...I finished the DVD set up a couple a weeks ago...and I forgot what a great show it is...Bixby was perfect Banner!

Most people take the opposite view... Ang does OK with more dramatic and thought provoking subject matter - not with a "popcorn movie" which Hulk should have been. The movie was boring and the acting was very wooden. If you want to call that "cold and very distant", OK. Whatever...

You can't argue with word of mouth. Usually it is right on target. Hulk is a typical word of mouth case in point.

If you think there are a lot of "alpha males" on a dvd internet website then I think you have a very distorted view of reality.

and which one are you?

nuttin wrong with sequels... ESB was the best Star Wars... and T2 was the best terminator. I really liked the Hulk... the ending was a lil shaddy... but i still liked the movie. A sequel with Bana would be good.

j

It never ceases to amaze me how studios have franchise gold in their hands, and then let it slip through the fingers. (Hulk, Alien, Superman, and Batman come quickly to mind, but I could create an entire thread with other examples.) How do you have something worth billions and then flush it down the toilet? Are you purposely trying to fail???

Tomb Raider 2 saw a very unimpressive opening weekend even though the first installment was modestly successful. Despite the typical studio excuses, I have no doubt bad word of mouth from the original contributed to that dilemma. I see Hulk 2, if it gets made, as suffering the same fate.

Guess you've never read the comics, huh? That's NOT what the Hulk should be. For the most part, the story of the Hulk is drama and pathos and introspection - at least as far as the comics can portray. The Hulk is - and should be - much more than a large green man throwing tanks and saying "HULK SMASH!!!"

The TV show got the balance dead on - mostly drama and human emotions, with an occasional green man knocking down walls once an episode.

Was it a perfect film? Holding it up to the benchmark that is Superhero Movie Perfection (AKA Superman), it still pales in comparison. However it was light years ahead of that dreadfuly boring X-Men 1 and 2.

No it wasn't

still lacking in the evidence of profit, as the studio poured well over $30 million in marketing the film, putting them in the red. ancillary markets? those aren't free, you know -- costs of production, promotion, placement, and so forth.

True, those ancillary markets are not free. But the costs aren't that large compared to production and initial marketing. Granted this wasn't some mega 100 million dollar profit movie, but it wasn't a big time loser either. While I can't prove anything regarding profits, I think it can be seen that this movie is probably in the black, if not very close. I can't say whether that's enough to convince a studio to make another film...

Yes, it was.

As for Hulk 2, i hope it gets made. but this time with McTiernan or the like directing. the first one was good to set the characters, but the best parts were the action scenes. it can hopegully be akin to Superman 1 and 2.

uh...yeah...i didn't really think that one out
its just that the level of vitriol in regards to this movie amazes me.
i reserve my deep and seething hatred for things like Michael Bay films, but in that case, i know my taste and intelligence is being insulted because Bay totally ignores things like logic and character motivation soley for the benefit of superfulous action and mayhem.
the impression i get from the pans of Hulk, is that Ang offended or insulted people in some way with this film.
that i just don't understand

its not perfect, there are a few points that come across as forced and not quite believable so that we can get to the Hulk transformation, but on the whole, i thought its differences in themes and treatment from the run of the mill superhero movie made it a refreshing change.

i think peoples opinions of this are pretty much set in stone at this point so there is little use arguing the point.

as for sequels, i thought Superman 2 was one of the most tacky and classless superhero movies ever made-
from the cheap and cheesy bluescreen effects of the opening (not to mention that the trios 'crime' isn't very well delinieated- it just seems silly and inconsequential), where we also get a hurried, poor voice-in for an absent Brando- all the way to the cheesy resolution at the Fortress of Solitude where super-powers are pulled out of thin air( force beams, holographic projections that turn to ice, cellophane S shields).
even the Donner material is poor(lex escaping, from a high security federal prison, in a hot air ballon, the stupidity and nonchanlance of the bystanders, the lack of any kind of serious strategy for taking over and ruling the planet from Kryptons 'greatest general')
just a horrible follow up.
obviously the people at Warner have good taste as the first film was clearly the only one that merited any serious treatment.
jmo, of course.

but many people like it (and so many claimed to like it more than the first film for a long time) 'cause its got stuff goin on constantly.
never mind that most of it insults your intelligence-or that the effects work is cheap and shoddy.
i would hate to see that happen to Hulk.

I agree with most of your post but wanted to point out that the Superman flicks were not made by Warners, they were negative pickups financed by the Salkind duo.

I disagree. Solely on the fact that at least 1 person would have to go see it to generate the bad word of mouth. I see tumbleweeds rollin' through theaters showing Hulk 2.

when i said

"obviously the people at Warner have good taste as the first film was clearly the only one that merited any serious treatment."

i was referring to the treatment the films were getting by WB on dvd.
many people at the time complained that the print for II looked dingy and there wasn't a new 5.1 track or any significant extras.

as much as i dislike the film- if WB ever released a disc of Donners cut or even just all the cut footage as supplement, i would still probably buy it.
There were a lot of ideas at script stage that were just too damn stupid no matter who filmed them, for the film to ever have been more than just lesser of the two, but Lester had his own special way of dumbing down the material.

i finally got around to seeing this today after hearing so many horrible things about it. while it wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be, it wasn't very good either. it did have a few bright spots in the acting part but the story was complete and utter junk. the biggest problem is the fact that they had banner's dad in it. because of this, they changed up bruce's entire back story and it just went downhill from there. the hulk looked pretty cool i thought but the story was absolutely horrnedus.

I think the biggest problem with the Hulk movie is its lack of identity.

The movie couldn't deside wether it was basing itself off of the comic,the cartoon,or the 70's tv show.

The first half is a drama..its ok but really its not nearly as good as a drama as the original 70's show pilot. You just felt so much more for Bill Bixby then you did for bana..so for fans of the show..they would really be disappointed.

For the second half of the movie it does a good job emulating the cartoon and comic action surpisingly good actually..but after an hour of slow moving buildup Its not enough to satisfy those wanting a popcorn smashem up movie.


I really think in the sequal they will have figured this out and realised you have to pick a direction to take the vision of the film and stick with it and not try to be all things to all people. This would only help make it a better movie then the original.

I see the movie in two parts...the first half is sorta Jekyll and Hyde and the second half is Frankenstein...

Anyway...its a Monster movie...not a sci-fi/action movie...

Due to the debate in this thread, I picked up Hulk used and watched it last night. I LOVED it! I loved everything about it (okay, perhaps Nick Nolte was a bit over the top). Now, I don't want them to do a sequel simply because all the people from the first are backing out, and they helped make it so great. Still, I guess if they give another talented director free reign to do as he or she wishes, then it might turn out as interesting.