NitroJMS

I think the film would have done better in a February release slot, ala Daredevil and Ghost Rider. It wouldn't have had to live in the shadows of Iron Man and Indy at that point since there's very little competition around then traditionally.

devilshalo

Yeah, cuz Iron Man and Spider-man had no cg whatsoever.

islandclaws

I'm not surprised by how the new Hulk has performed. People still had a bad taste in their mouths from Lee's version and, in all honesty, this version didn't look much different based solely on previews. The trailers for this film weren't spectacular like they needed to be, they were just as good as Lee's film. Secondly, the film felt like much had been excised, and it was, so it wasn't quite as good as it needed to be for that big word-of-mouth boost. I'm sure it'll do well on DVD, but I don't see a sequel happening anytime soon. Certainly not with Norton.

Hokeyboy

And yet it is widely considered by the industry that Jackson's "King Kong" movie underperformed.

I'd say that the least of *that* movie's problems was the CGI, though.

fumanstan

Well, the Hulk movies made more then any of the Blade movies, and also Daredevil. I can't think of what other lesser known comic book movies you're thinking of, and I wouldn't call the new film's take as failing miserably. It wasn't a big hit, but it wasn't a failure because of the lower expectations around it.

King Kong seems like a perfect example though, since it requires the viewer to have an emotional attachment to the character as he's brought over to the city and his relationship with the girl.

d2cheer

Overall it will probably make some cash for Marvel but I still would consider it a failure at the box office as it will not even get back its budget. With marketing the cost is over 200 million according to the an article on yahoo.

In that regard then most movies are probably failures if they don't at least make back their budget.

I doubt there will be another too bad.

BullGooseLoony

Completely agreed. When I heard Universal was attempting a sequel/remake for a mid-June release, I knew it would come off as just another generic summer blockbuster.

The truth is, Incredible Hulk was not marketed as an EVENT. Ang Lee's Hulk, for all it's flaws, was sold as THE event of June. But it turned out to be a dud. This Hulk, however, was just the movie of the week, even though it was much more entertaining.

Had they released in March, this might have been able to pull in $150 domestically, as opposed to barely beating the first film.

fumanstan

Worldwide take is at $220 million though. For the Ang Lee version, it was at $245 million worldwide.

I don't think these were big money losers at all, rather then a case of expectations of the first being a $200 million take and missing that by a mile, along with poor critical reviews.

d2cheer

True, but I don't think the oversea's split is the same as it is here. IIRC a lot of times the overseas money returned to the studio is a lot less than here because of it being presold in the overseas markets, then when it is released the % back to the studio is way less than the cut here. Someone could probably correct me or expand on this.

Either way I would not mind a sequal...

Solid Snake

Well....a minor selling point to me, which now I see is actually a major, is that Norton was working on it. He has a pretty good track record. I'm sure others felt the same way. And I would never accept a non-CGI Hulk in today's world. It's the Hulk. The Hulk is massive, people know that now. For the TV age of than a lot of adults didn't know that the Hulk's size and whatnot. For the time it worked, cuz it was the only way. We all know the Hulk is massive. Plus it'd be very ridiculous to see a man as the Hulk now. I think that most people in the kid range DON'T know about the TV show. I knew what he was before the TV show, in fact when I saw it I was like 9 and watching reruns. Being 22 now, I would rather have a CGI Hulk than a man painted in Green Hulk. And if the on the subject of Hellboy. No offense but Hellboy isn't that big, and nobody made an issue that Hellboy wasn't CGI. It was pretty much stamped early on that an actor was going to play him in live action. In fact I've yet to hear an argument that Hellboy should've been CGI. That would've been ridiculous. I still ghink general audiences know now and accept that Hulk is not man sized at all.

Mr. Cinema

Wrong

-$550 million worldwide (4th highest grossing movie in Universal Pictures history)
-$38 million in dvd rentals
-DVD sales over 7 million
-First 6 day DVD sales totaled over 6.5 million copies translating to over $100 million in sales (Universal Pictures record)

-4 Oscar Nominations, 3 Oscar Wins
-Very good critical reviews (84% at Rotten Tomatoes)
-Made several critic's top 10 lists (http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/...ritics_01.html)

Jericho

Yeah, but Hellboy is always Hellboy. The Hulk is either Bruce Banner or the Hulk. And Banner has to look normal, not a muscled up dude. So how do you make the Hulk? Either: (1) make the actor playing Banner do some weird make-up and muscle suit; or (2) replace the actor with another a la the TV show; or (3) CGI. Those are your three options. Which one comes across best for a movie? I'm not seeing 1 or 2 working too well, particularly in transformation scenes.

Hokeyboy

Ummm... you missed my point.

I'm talking about perception. "King Kong" was written off as a "disappointment in relation to costs/expectations" as early as its opening day. Jackson & Company got a $30 million deal with Universal harboring expectations of the "next LOTR-styled blockbuster".

The movie made money, was profitable for the studio, and got critical raves. But it got solidly trounced by both Narnia and Harry Potter, when it was expected to easily rule the Holiday season.

PERCEPTION -- not reality. Very similar with whats going on with the new Hulk movie. The only difference, in my opinion, was that HULK was a pretty damn good movie, and KONG... was shit.

JMcCraw

Actually, I like the idea of 2. CGI can help sell the transformation. I'm not anti CGI, I just feel that it a tool that gets overused and can be extremely effective when used sparingly.

maxfisher

Off topic, but is that right? 6.5 million in 6 days and then .5 million over the following 2 years? I find it hard to believe that any DVD would follow that kind of sales trend.

Dr Mabuse

absolutely true...

wm lopez

Hulk seems to a supporting character like the Silver Surfer.
They need to put Hulk in supporting roles.
He's the Chris Walken of comic book super heros.

Kerborus

The problem with BOTH of the Hulk movies is that the directors had no concept of how to use the source material. Both altered and combined the tv show with their own visions and with the comic but in such a way that was so laborious to understand that it became tiresome. Plus, getting a french guy to direct hulk is like asking Erkel to wrestle the Rock.

If I'm directing this film the following would happen:

- Starts in the recent past with the detonation of a gamma bomb and Rick Jones being saved by bruce Banner. This blast mysteriously creates Hulk. Nuff said.
- Hulk starts Grey and talks.
- Hulk Greens out and STILL talks. I have no clue why both movies had a mute Hulk. Both directors missed out on the fact that a talking Hulk is one of the BEST parts of Hulk. The Hulk NEVER stops talking and as a result, more emotion and humor come out of his character rather than just RARRRRRHHH! The CGI Hulk is not recieved well because there is no humanity to it.
- Evil characters such as Blonsky would have real motivations instead of shallow ones. The Leader would be my first villain.
- Instead of watching Norton struggle facially to surpress the Hulk, I would revert to Banner's psyche to show Banner and Hulk having discourse between the 'door' that keeps the Hulk back.
- When the Hulk is unleashed it would be an EVENT. People would die. Buildings would fall. It would be akin to a natural disaster and would require Shield or the Avengers to respond. The Hulk is simply not fearsome in the movie but portrayed sympathetically.
- Hulk would be 'the Strongest there is'. PERIOD. He wouldn't be getting bested in any way at any time, unless it was by a mental attack or gas or something. I think Letteirer's Hulk spent more time on his knees recovering then any Hulk I ever imagined.
- There would be a goal for Banner/Hulk to achieve, not just 'military chases Hulk'.

That's my two cents. I thought both directors botched the movie and besides his inclusion in the upcoming Avengers movie, I would wait ten years and do it right...

Mr. Cinema

I couldn't find total sales, so I put over 7. I'm sure Kong has gotten to 8-9 million copies or more.

cerial442

The Hulk talked in the latest one.

costanza

he talked in the first one too. one line. just like the second one. not exactly a chatty fellow in the movies. which will hopefully change if there is a sequel since they really played up banner having more control of his hulking. professor hulk, here we come!

rennervision

I like most of your suggestions. (Although not sure if a gray Hulk is all that necesssary, and will just convolute the whole plot.) I agree this franchise needs a director with great knowledge and fondness for the source material. This is why Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was so good - well, the original and the first sequel at least.

Hulk needs a director who understands this character. I've been very disappointed that suggestions you made which seem like no-brainers to a fan of the comic books keep getting overlooked. It suggests people wanting to put their own spin on the TV series (which really wasn't much like the comics at all) rather than take the time to familiarize themselves with the original story.

Kerborus

Hulk had I think, two meaningless lines in the first Hulk ('Puny Banner' and 'Take it allllll!') and in the new one ('Hulk Smash'). Neither contributed anything to the character in a meaningful way.

The Hulk NEVER shuts up during battle. 'Are you Hulk's friend? Bah! You are not Hulk's friend, Hulk will show you who is strongest... Blah blah blah.' This is one of the key characteristics of the Hulk and both ignored it.

Shannon Nutt

I hated Ang Lee's HULK. I loved THE INCREDIBLE HULK. I actually liked it more than IRON MAN.

Mr. Cinema

I liked Iron Man more, but I definitely prefer the '08 Hulk over the '03. Plus, the pacing of the film is going to make it much easier to enjoy on home video vs the '03 version. I think that will lead to solid dvd/bd sales and rentals.