1. The folks behind this Hulk movie are business people. And the one thing you can always count on business people to do is to maximize profit. Was this movie profitable? Yeah, and it will earn more when it's released to DVD. Was this movie as profitable as Iron Man or any of the Spider-Man films? No. What the studio wants is to pump out more films that have a ratio of money spent on production and promotion to profit that's closer to their more successful films.

Was it a good film? Was it a success? These are all questions that have little bearing on the kinds of decisions that the people behind these movies are making. Who cares if a superhero movie is a critical darling if it falls flat at the box office? This is business after all. Who cares if a hard-core group of fans loves the film, if they're too small to spend enough money to make it more profitable? They're not interested in servicing fans only, they want to pull in as many people as they can.

I enjoyed both Hulk movies immensely, for completely different reasons. Ang Lee's Hulk was a character study. I loved that. Letterier's Incredible Hulk is more of a Monster Procedural. What I love about it is watching the way that Banner works to deal with his affliction. It's good fun.

But good fun isn't enough motivate businessmen to spend money. Especially when they have certain expectations for the kind of movie they're making. When their expectations for profit are not realized, they are likely to move on to something else.

What we think, what critics think is pretty irrelevant. What matters is the profit. If the Hulk in a pink Tutu, running dachsunds through a flaming hoop made a higher profit than Spider-Man, then next year, we'd see Batman at Sea World riding a killer whale.

Posted at 10:52AM on Jul 9th 2008 by Greg Holkan

2. This isn't the first time I have seen business idiots try to use scientism to prove their point. I love how the first film is not taken into account here.

Someone needs to show them how a hot stove works.

When you place your hand on a burning stove you'll get burnt. After that happens how likely are you to be stupid enough to throw your hand back on it.

This 'should' be the golden rule of the box office. It has decided the fates of most sequels. If people tend to like the first film they're even more likely to see the second film (and invite their friends with them).

So if a mainstream audience is greatly disappointed with Hulk(which attracted a decent audience based off the Hulk IP, Ang Lee arthouse fans, and an excuse to see CG.

So when this eclectic audience gets burned they're not likely to go back. I was somewhat burned by Hulk (worse than a bad film, but a disappointment based from hype) so it took me over three weeks before I even bothered to see The Incredible Hulk (and I'm an opening night kind of guy). It was a tough choice against the Happening (with a similar dilemma but the IP is the director in that case).

Considering all of these items holding TCH back, I would consider it a success. Especially, if you consider the future word of mouth that will pass on DVD.

If producers, bean-counters, or other hollywood idiots would like a course in logic & common sense I would be more than happy to teach it. Maybe they'll learn the easiest way to make money is to make a good movie.

Posted at 11:18AM on Jul 9th 2008 by Gorman

3. Was it entertaining to the fanbase? Yes. Was it able to reach a mainstream audience? Yes. Did it recoup it's budget? Yes. Was it an action movie instead of an introspective drama with too many bad FX? Yes. Is today's market more dominated by DVD sales rather than a theater-going one? Yes. Does getting even close to the revenue of a time when that market was predominately theater-going make you a success? Yes.

There you go.

Posted at 11:19AM on Jul 9th 2008 by Hollywood Mike

4. I do think this one will have a better post-movie life on DVD etc... I think it will win new fans over after the fact. Also, Hulk toys and merchandise are a big factor in getting a Hulk movie back in the theaters. I believe those "Hulk Hands" released with the first film pretty much made more money than the movie itself. Plus as a franchise it keeps the character in the public view, and will launch some TV cartoons and straight-to-DVD releases from Marvel, so the movie is part of a larger branding.

Sure, as a Marvel fan, I would have loved to see this hitting the $300 million mark, but honestly I was worried going into it that the movie would bomb because of the first one's negative taint. There was real excitement/buzz going into the first one and almost none for the second, but the second managed to do just as well. So I would qualify this as a success... not a huge one, but on the plus side nevertheless.

Posted at 11:27AM on Jul 9th 2008 by Rayallison

5. Based on the box office and rotten tomatoes, it seems, hype wise that:
New Hulk: over rated
Old Hulk: under rated

History will see both of them as mere footnotes in the superhero film lore.

Posted at 12:07PM on Jul 9th 2008 by totoro

6. It could have been a great success if not for Ed Norton Jr. This was by far one of the worst performances I've ever seen out of him. I've been a fan of most of his work and was looking forward to his portrayal of Banner. It was horrendous and dragged the entire film down.

Posted at 1:05PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Tainted

7. I think the main reason I haven't seen it is probably the same as a lot of other peoples. It came out at an inconvenient time and there were so many others I wanted to see as well. That said I think that when this comes out on DVD it will do far better than the Ang Lee version.

Posted at 1:34PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Billy

8. I think it was just successful enough to re-make a third time. Keep reimagining the story until it cracks $300 million.

Posted at 1:56PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Godard

9. This was Hulk film was far superior to the original the reason i think most people r having trouble gettin into this one is because a) Marvel/Universal spent little to no money or time marketing this one b) some people are stilled scorned by Ang Lee's two and a half hour chick flick version c) the most glaring reason is people and critics walked into this one expecting a movie like Spiderman or Iron Man where between battles the hero seems to have time to make jokes and even pretend to be enjoying life.This is not that kind of superhero movie Bruce Banner doesn't put on a costume and become the hulk he has a monster inside of him that he is desperately trying to get rid of.This is why I see this movie in the same vein as the punisher instead its a more mature character and subject matter and hard to expect it to gross 300 million cuz it's not really and action adventure its more of a action horror movie but all that said I still want to see a sequel before Avengers

Posted at 3:05PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Brandon Barbin

10. hulk 1 probably didnt make much of dvds because everyone was done with it after the theatre hulk 2. will probably make tons

Posted at 5:31PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Riley Freeman

11. What is the audience for a Hulk film?

Why the F*** has the Hulk had 2 movies and a crappy TV show? People cannot relate to the Hulk. Fanboys love him, everyone else not so much.

Posted at 5:34PM on Jul 9th 2008 by K.V.C

12. The Incredible Hulk accomplishes a few things. It gives some nods to the old TV show, uses fancy special effects, has some references from the comics, delivers more action than the Ang Lee film, drops some hints and cameos to the upcoming Avengers movie, and even borrows elements from the Ultimate Destruction video game. On it's own? It doesn't do too much. Ed Norton, Tim Roth, and William Hurt offer decent performances, but nothing groundbreaking. This movie doesn't really allow them to express their true talents.

The story itself is told kind of sloppy and it's very predictable (partially because most of the plot is told in the trailers); as if the whole purpose is to lead up to the big fight between the Hulk and the Abomination. Even though it's an entirely new film and not a sequel, it kind of plays like a sequel... a sequel of a movie that never existed. There's a brief explanation of how Bruce Banner became the Hulk and the relationship between him and Betty Ross, but not enough to fully understand or to suck you into the story. It's rushed through like we're supposed to "already know" how everything happened. In spite of that, the story begins where the first one left off (Bruce as a fugitive hiding in Brazil), they both use a CGI Hulk, and they both have a cameo of Lou Ferrigno as a security guard... but yet, it's not a sequel!

The music score holds up pretty well, and when the actual Hulk action picks up, you can tell there some cool stuff happening, but the camera is too erratic to actually see it. While the effects were good, I personally think the Hulk himself is too detailed and animated; moving around and doing things far too fast. It doesn't seem realistic. That seems to be a problem with CGI teams these days. It's harder to enjoy when your eyes are trying to keep up with what's going on. Plus, slowing things down a bit can add much more weight, strength, and solidity... especially when mixing CG with real life.

Overall, as hard as I tried, I couldn't find much to like about The Incredible Hulk; and it actually made me appreciate the Ang Lee film more. The first film wasn't a bad movie, it's just that there was too much plot, depth, and heart for a movie about a guy who turns into a green monster whenever he gets pissed (and way too much Nick Nolte). But, I disliked this new movie because it lacked in those same areas. Plus, Jennifer Connelly played her role better than Liv Tyler, in my opinion.

I'm sure most people who hated Ang Lee's more character driven version loved this more action oriented flick. There was definitely more "Hulk smashing". But It tries too hard to distance itself from the Ang Lee film, and it's not necessary. The Incredible Hulk doesn't stand too well on it's own and probably would've worked better as a sequel.

Posted at 2:07AM on Jul 10th 2008 by Twin Tiger

13. As a big fan of the first Hulk, I was a bit underwhelmed by the second one. Not to say I didn't like it a lot. I did, but I didn't think it was any sort of vast improvement over Ang Lee's version the way they were making it out to be. It was actually quite similar to Lee's Hulk, only shorter so it seemed more action-packed. And it certainly had less character development. But who, besides me, went to see Incredible Hulk to see characters develop? The only development summer audiences wanted to see was Banner developing into the Hulk, and then the Hulk developing an ass whooping to the Abomination.

Posted at 3:03AM on Jul 13th 2008 by kevjohn

14. I think the first and second Hulk outs were quite stellar, and the beginning of the 'Street Fight' sequence, right up until pummeling Abomination into the pavement was fantastic. Once they started bounding around, all physics & believability was lost.

But that last closeup of them grappling face-to-face was fantastic, again, b/c there wasn't much movement, just rendering of gigantic masses in tight motion w/ highly detailed textures.

The next Hulk should be a monster movie - not a Superhero movie. Hulk should lumber through the darkness, emerging only now & then, and should NEVER, NEVER, EVER be shown in direct, overhead lighting in mid afternoon.

That's just basic photography, and Letterier should've known better.

But seriously, I picked up a recent copy of FX magazine, and the stills just simply didn't look very good. The glowing eyes seemed unecessary. Both Abomination & Hulk's faces were extremely hollow- looking, and they would've done better to pay more attention to rendering faces than adding a shirt for Hulk to rip off when he emerges from the pavement.

The next Hulk will already involve the Leader, whose Big-Brain need not involve ANY cgi - so there already they have a much more compelling villain to work with.

But seriously- make it a monster movie. In fact, make it the Gray Hulk, just to FORCE the filmmaker to light every Hulk shot either in a shroud of darkness, or in direct Moonlight.

And make the next "Guest appearance" be mother-fucking Wolverine, this time!

You think I'm kidding? TRY me.

Firstly - Hulk had BETTER have a guest scene in Wolverine Origins- mainly b/c that IS where Wolverine's first foray took place.

So that gives an opportunity for an overlap scene.
Except - sh*t . They messed up the chronology.

Wolverine's gonna be fighting in WWII. So Weapon X will have to have his first mission, let's see - NOW. Tracking & finding the Hulk, in the Canadian wilderness.

Okay- it's a stretch but it's their only way out, w/ the groundwork layed by Hulk's new origin. At least this film was smart and concluded w/ Banner banishing himself to the Canadian wilderness...

Okay, okay. That's your opener scene then. Wow us from there, Marvel.

Better yet. I'll get started on a script for you, right fucking now.

Hit you up soon, boys...

Posted at 4:42AM on Jul 14th 2008 by Django

15. I did not like the new movie nearly as much as the old. 2 b sure i was right i went out and bought the Ang Lee film, I love that movie. The comic book quality and 5 main characters were so much better and the cgi was way way better in the first hulk. Watch him fighting the helicopters and tanks, It's so realistic and beautifully done. Everything about it was better including the relationship between Bana, Connelly, his dad, her dad and "that HULK" and the musical score. It is and will remain one of my 10 favorite movies. Not using the Bana Connelly duo is right up there with not using Nicholson as the joker in Bat 2 which BTW was not even as good as Bat1 but, that's another story.

M

Classic

Posted at 12:23PM on Jul 30th 2008 by mark

16. I agree with a lot that Mark said, and am late in getting on here. The second Hulk movie was a loud, violent bore. It had no heart and was depressing. Ang Lee's film was better in every way, It seems that some folks can't handle some human aspects to their characters and story and want total escapism, but that becomes very boring to me.

Posted at 7:39AM on Aug 25th 2008 by Bud