Going around the net, I’ve been reading posting after posting regarding the reputed underperformance of “The Hulk” at the box office. What’s amazing to me is the utter glee that so many are taking in that. This warped sense of vindication, this joy that one of the more thoughtful entries in the superhero film genre is not enjoying the wide audience success of “X-Men” or “Spider-Man.” The German word “Schadenfreude” summarizes the attitude nicely: It means to take pleasure in other people’s misfortunes.
Guys…you think the script they filmed had problems? I read earlier drafts before any of the current creative personnel were aboard. No Betty. No General Ross. No resemblance whatsoever to the comic book in any incarnation. The Hulk got around by tearing off the roof of a car, hopping in and driving away.
Yet I see all this chortling and “Thank God there won’t be a Hulk II.” If that should be the case…how is this a good thing? Who’s to say the sequel wouldn’t have been better?
Instead poor performance simply encourages Hollywood money men to be less inclined to invest the kind of money that’s required to do comic book movies right. This is Not A Good Thing.
PAD
• 
Peter’s right about this. I was hopeful the movie would be good. I was skeptical from the trailers, but I figured Ang Lee, if nothing else, would deliver a good story. If there was a good story, I could forgive a subpar-looking Hulk.
The CGI Hulk became the least of my concerns. I was utterly disappointed in this film. I really wanted to like it, but the story was just…feh.
I wasn’t happy about this, though. Yes, I panned the movie on my weblog. They took the essence of the character, the very reason the Hulk exists (Banner’s alcoholic father beating the crap out of him), and completely did away with it. Banner’s father as a mad scientist? Please.
As I said, I was highly disappointed in the movie. SPIDER-MAN was wonderful. Both X-MEN films were great. I look forward to the next installments of each. Would I go see a second HULK film if they make one?
Honestly, I’m not sure. But I certainly wouldn’t complain if they made the attempt.
As Peter said, it’s not a good thing this movie is doing poorly at the box office, as future comic book films might not get the chance they deserve.
On the other hand, HULK was, I believe, poorly written. It had a lousy story. And so if its performance at the box office puts a charge into Hollywood to make a better product the next time out, then good. It’s for the best.
Enough of my rambling…
Well, _I’m_ hardly thrilled at THE HULK’s declining fortunes. I honestly liked it better than any previous comic-superhero adaptation (OK, maybe excepting X2) if only because its artistic ambitions were higher.
On the other hand I doubt the sequel, from what I’ve read, would be better. Schamus wants to bring in the gray Hulk as a villain. I don’t want him to.
I just imagine an attempt at filming the gray Hulk vs. green Hulk battle that Peter wrote in INCREDIBLE HULK #376, which might work on the comic page but I don’t think it’d work on screen. How would it be resolved? By introducing the Merged Hulk? The movie Hulk already has Eric Bana’s face…
I haven’t seen it yet but plan to this weekend. Oh Happy 4th of July everyone!!!
I just saw the movie today and actually liked it. Granted, the scene-shifting and jumpcuts got old fast, and the final battle between the Hulk and… the other monster (watch as Mike deftly dodges spoilers!) was rather confusing, but the movie was, one the whole, better than I expected.
Unfortunately, there were only six other people in the theater besides myself. Then again, we’re also talking about the day after Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2 opened, and the day before July 4th, so that’s not a surprise.
I am, however, going to have to pick up the novelization to fill in some of the stuff the movie didn’t cover or glossed over really quickly. Looking forward to that.
I loved the Hulk movie. To me it was GREAT. The movie was the first real “comic book movie.” It was a comic book brought to life. Loved the ‘panels’! The acting, cgi, story, etc were great.
I really (REALLY) don’t like that the movie isn’t doing well. I think it deserves to do well. I hope theres a Hulk 2 and Ang Lee is directing again.
Can’t wait till this movie is on DVD!
DF2506
” Who is also looking forward to the Daredevil dvd alot!”
I saw the movie on it’s opening day – I was that excited about it. And I actually sort of want to see it again – I was definately NOT disapointed! I thought the CGI Hulk was really groundbreakingly amazing. I really don’t get all the “CGI Hulk Bad” stuff being tossed around, but maybe thats just my opinion.
I thought the movie followed the early comic stories rather well. They had all the original major characters, but basicly gave it a modern day look. And although the technical desciptions of how the Hulk was created, I thought they where being a little more challenging to the original concept of Gamma Radiation – since Cold War perceptions about Nucular Radiation are long but gone. Although Peter was right when he said people would just excect it – at least give them credit for tackling the idea from the modern day perception.
Plus, the addition of Nanomeds to the origin gave a plausable excuse to bring in Banner’s father into the plot. Being a mad doctor was certinly diffrent, but I think the trama factor was there just as much – seeing as he barbaricly experimented on his son. Thats just as deep a kind of abuse.
I do wish it had done better at the Box Office. I’m at least glad Ang Lee took some chances, and although not succeeding in sales you’ve got to be glad he tried to bring Peter’s fractured Phyche of Banner to the plot.
Oh – and the last scene I’m sure brought a smile to the faces of any fans of the old Hulk TV show.
The good news is, Marvel licensed several movies in the last couple of years, and has only struck out once. And it wasn’t the first movie they licensed, so that does prevent the movie companies from deciding that all Marvel movies are a waste of time given the relative success of X-Men, Spider-Man, and Daredevil.
But while Hulk is only one loss in Marvel’s recent wave of movie successes, they can only afford so many losses before they decide to put away the cameras and stick with pencils. So let’s hope the next one is another success.
No spoilers, I hope.
I enjoyed the movie. In retrospect, the story wasn’t as up to snuff as I would’ve hoped, with the finale being kind of goofy, but it’s still just a movie… only so much you can fit in. I liked the (unintentional?) tribute to at least 2 of Bruce’s old comic book enemies (now that I think of it, maybe a couple of others if you try hard). And I have no problem with CGI Hulk.
The attitude of the fans… hëll, fandom generally to any time they get a little bit of attention, is just pathetic. Hulk isn’t real enough??? Two years ago you couldn’t have had anything looking THAT GOOD and now it sucks??? I honestly can’t figure out what people expect, and it makes me happy I don’t lurk a lot of the entertainment newsboards.
I loved the CGI Hulk.
I HATED The goddam split screen effect. It was annoying at first, but by the end of the movie, I would almost turn into the Hulk myself whenever they would use it.
AAARRGGHHH!!!!
Overall, I thought that Hulk was a poor movie with a few good scenes in it at best.
The only reason I am glad that it did not do well is so that they nevr use that goddam split screen effect ever again.
If it had been successfull, every comic movie following it might have benn tempted to use that goddam effect to have their movie look like a comic book.
ARRGGGHH!!!!
The Hulk got around by tearing off the roof of a car, hopping in and driving away.
Lol, I’d pay to see that!
While I wasn’t impressed by the film, I DO hope there’s a sequel made. The Hulk himself was cool as hëll, and now with that jumbled mess of an origin out of the way, I think a great Hulk film is possible.
Here in Germany, one of the big cinema chains won’t show Hulk because the film company (UIP?) charges them too much money, so naturally, the response for the movie here will be low.
Aside from that – I saw a trailer once and the way the Hulk was shown had too much of a computer graphic – not a feeling of making it real, like they did with the old series (yes, I know it was an actor back then).
So no incentive for me to watch it either.
Just been to the premier here in London last night where we had Ang Lee, Jennifer Connolly and Eric Bana turn up. There was a great audience reaction to the film and certain scenes got applause (something that never happens in the UK at the cinema unlike the States) – first Hulk out, Lou Ferrigno’s cameo. Its already been getting positive reviews in European film magazines and media. What people tend to forget with all of the talk of dissappointing box-office is that they’re referring to domestic performance and most studios woke up to the fact a long time ago that there is a lot more money to be made in the international market. Hopefully this will lead to a sequel being made.
It’s a given that “The Hulk” will get a far better reception abroad than here in the states. The dreadful blockbuster mentality is universal, but it isn’t so overpowering elsewhere as here. And as Ferg writes, the reception in the UK is quite favorable.
As it is, I rank “The Hulk” as the best comic-book/superhero adaptation so far, on a par with the non-comic-book/superhero film “Unbeakable,” which also managed to polarize audiences by being a real film, not simply a popcorn movie.
Well, the movie was poorly paced, no denying that. The second climax was completely unnecessary, too. Having said that, there were some great moments in that movie, and all of them had the green guy there. Except for the one line General Ross had for Betty when she claimed Hulk saved her life. THAT was priceless.
I read somewhere (maybe here…) that someone felt the movie would have been better if we had discovered Bruce’s problems as HE discovered them. I’m inclined to agree. This is one case where telling would have been better than showing, THEN telling.
I do hope there’s a sequel, since I’d love to see the Leader, or Abomination, or, hëll, Mr. Fixit. No more origin, and as long as there aren’t more “fancy” climaxes…
Personally, I loved the movie. I thought it’s only drawback was its use of the Absorbing Man, which was really unnecessary, since the army (and his father, unpowered) were villains enough. But other than that, I definitely liked it’s more psychological rather than action tone, and I thought it ironic that that’s what New Marvel has been criticizing your Hulk run for. IMO, Avi Arad has a better vision than those in charge of publishing.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s a given there won’t be a sequel. I mean, yes, the movie underperformed to expectations, but they’ve made sequels of movies that made less money right?
Oh, and I should point out, you teased Mark Evanier for using a “fancy German word” to describe people’s reactions to Neil’s victory over Todd 😉
I must say that I liked the movie. I thought that the first hour or so dragged (sp?) but the second half of the movie was very well done and I really liked that spilt screen thing. It was very inovative.(sp?)
later 🙂
I think when bad movies do poorly at the box office it’s a good thing. And I think Hulk was a bad movie.
I had no problems with the CGI Hulk. But I do think Eric Bana was a poor choice to play Banner. He looked like a superhero and had little screen presence I thought… he certainly didn’t give us an interesting cauldron of repressed anger. They did their best to strip the concept of fun and humor, but failed in their attempts at psychological insight, I thought.
I can’t imagine there’ll be a sequel when it’s dropping like a stone at the box office. The nature of the character is such that a sequel couldn’t be made for a much lower budget. And I don’t think reducing the role of the Hulk even further to save money could work, given the lackluster performance of Eric Bana.
Remember, when bad movies do well at the box office, we get even worse copies of those bad movies. Here’s to the box office failure of “Hulk.”
I gotta agree with PAD!
First, I liked the movie. I didn’t love it, I liked it. I will own the DVD, but it will only receive occasional viewings, probably yearly, from me.
That said, I am glad for the comic book elements (Like General Ross, etc.) that were kept in the movie. I am in gratitude that Ang Lee approached the project with respect, if not exact faithfulness. I think the Hulk, himself, was fine, and I do hope there’s a sequel. (DVD sales could make the difference, if the sales of tickets at the theaters don’t.)
And anytime a superhero movie fails in Hollywood, it hurts the prospect for more. Hollywood never blames itself. I’m sure someone in Hollywood has already remarked, in light of the Hulk’s poor performance, that this means superhero movies have run their course. Now, I think “The League of Extraoridinary Gentlemen,” “Spider-Man 2,” and others will continue to show Hollywood that superhero movies will continue to be big hits. Heck, “HULK” opened strong (No pun intended)! That, like “Birds of Prey”‘s initial success, should show Hollywood that there was interest in the product, just not how it was executed. But, honestly, I have little faith in Hollywood, so I don’t like to see even mediocre superhero films bomb. “Batman and Robin” killed interest in superhero films for a few years before “Blade” showed Hollywood that it’s not the character’s fault.
Nope, don’t celebrate the failure of a comic book film adaptation. Mourn it. We get too many of the failed films, and Hollywood will kill the plans to make more (and better) comic book films.
Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
654-B E. Diamond Ave.
Evansville, IN. 47711
It doesn’t matter how much money this movie makes after the break even point, whether that point is $100 million or only $60 million. Have you noticed the licensing for this movie? You can’t look *anywhere* without seeing green. There is so much green being sold that I wouldn’t be surprised to see green condoms on the shelves.
(Guaranteed not to break!)
Note to Jason Froikin: It is highly probable that, if there were no Marvel movies being made or optioned, there might not be any more Marvel comics. Marvel has said for at least the last 4-5 years that publishing comics has been profitable. They still almost went out of business. Investors want a big percentage return on their money. That’s what movies and licensing contracts bring.
//There is so much green being sold that I wouldn’t be surprised to see green condoms on the shelves.//
Hulk ribbed?
I saw the Hulk yesterday, and I think it was amazing. I don’t understand why everyone hates it. True, it wasn’t 100% faithful to the content of the comic, but it was a beautiful movie, and it was very faithful to the spirit of the comic. The plotlines really do mirror many plots from the comic, from the umpteen times the Army goes after the Hulk, to the Bruce and Betty romance, to Banner’s terrible relationship with his father. While David Banner didn’t beat his son on a regular basis, it is clear that he saw Bruce as a guinea pig. While he claimed he wanted to kill the young Bruce out of love, I wonder whether he really wanted to dissect him, and see what he could learn. I really loved the opening sequence showing David Banner’s research. It was simple enough that I could follow, even though it was full of pseudo-science.
As for the changes to the Hulk’s origin, so what? If long-time comic book readers can suspend their disbelief about a man who is caught in a nuclear explosion turning into a green behemoth, why can’t they accept the “lab accident” origin? I also didn’t think there was anything wrong with the CGI Hulk.
One final note, in the scene at the end, when Nick Nolte’s character goes berserk, and absorbs the electricity from the area, I couldn’t help but notice the resemblence the special FX had to the Zzaxx, a very old Hulk villain. I wonder if this was a purposeful homage, or if I’m reading to much into it.
All in all, the movie was wonderful. It would be a shame if they don’t do a sequel.
Who am I supposed to feel bad for, if the Hulk movie isn’t meeting expectations? Avi Arad, who announced his expected earnings over the next few movies on 60 Minutes? Q-mas? Give me a break.
I’m not taking any particular pleasure out of it either, but if it leads to fewer “poor” super-hero movies, it doesn’t bother me at all.
The problem is that anything Hollywood touches, they want to
make their own, they want to put their own spin to, because, Lord knows, what the hëll do comic creators know about it. Forget the comic fans, we’re going after the real market, movie goers.
They’re not making these movies for us. They’re making them to make money. We’re an afterthought. If we flock to the boxoffice, it’s “thanks to the fans”. If we don’t, “the fans on the internet drive us nuts”.
I saw the Spider-Man trailer and couldn’t wait to see it. There’s nothing in the Hulk trailer that would make me get out of my chair.
It’s too bad they couldn’t have put the Hulk out in February when there was no competition. Who thought Hulk could stand up to Terminator and Charlie’s Angels?
–Ed
I think the reason people sometimes feel the way you describe, Peter, is that they feel a sense of vindication when they find out that most other people agree with them.
Ed: I’m not taking any particular pleasure out of it either, but if it leads to fewer “poor” super-hero movies…
Luigi Novi: Except that it won’t. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that studio execs will draw a connection between the film’s performance and its quality, which is a fallacy. The reason execs do not make such connections is because of the simple reason that many more films of poor quality actually do well financially. How can any studio bigwig conclude that Hulk did tepid business because of its quality, when confusing, mediocre fair like Matrix Reloaded, or even utter SHÍT like Armageddon make all the money that they do?
Indeed, why would the studios conclude that the film’s performance was due to its quality, when opinions of the films, while mixed, are hardly of the universally despised Waterworld or Showgirls variety? 62% of critics polled at rottentomatoes.com, for example, rated it good.
I was extremely disappointed in the film, but I want films based on comic book properties to be made.
I haven’t seen The Hulk yet, but maybe I understand where some of the detractors are coming from. I’m a big fan of Birds of Prey, so I was thrilled to hear that there would be a show based on it.
Then I SAW the show.
I found myself wondering if these people had read any of the Birds of Prey comics, ever. Oracle was great, but . . . Dinah, the . . . teenage psychic?? Huntress (who wasn’t on the team in the comics anyway) with a screwy, pre-Crisis origin? But the worst part was the writing and the acting . . . “Sorry my best friend turned out to be your arch-enemy!” *winces*
So I WAS gleeful when the show tanked. Frankly, I’d rather have no BoP show than a bad BoP show. Ditto with the script for Superman V that was leaked to Ain’t It Cool. WB frantically started revising it when the fans started reviling it, but if it had come out, would I have wanted it to flop? Absolutely.
Sure, I want to see more comic book movies. But like any genre, you can make something great or something stupid out of the source material. No one writes off action films if one action film does poorly, right? No one says, “Well, there’s no market for comedy movies” if one comedy tanks, right? Hopefully the heads at Hollywood are intelligent enough to apply that logic to superhero films too.
Anyway, I’ve actually heard good things about The Hulk from my friends at work, so I’m actually looking forward to seeing it.
~LM~
You can’t take the bitter old comic geek net opinion serious. For the most part, the more vocal of them on the net want everything to fail. As for Hollywood giving up on super hero movies… I don’t think that any of this is the case. The Hulk had the biggest opening in June EVER. X2 is in the top 3 movies of the year. There are three reasons why Hulk failed. First and foremost, virtually everyone was expecting a family friendly update of the TV show. Second, for a non-family friendly movie, it cost too much. Third, it came out in June, the worse month for summer opening.
Ed said:
“The problem is that anything Hollywood touches, they want to
make their own, they want to put their own spin to, because, Lord knows, what the hëll do comic creators know about it.”
I gotta agree with you, Ed. A story and concept that has been good enough to last 40 years should be treated with more respect. Hollywood did pretty good with Spider-Man and X-Men. They were fairly close to the originals. Blade was a sidekick of sorts, but in his movie, he was the man with a sidekick. Instead of stealing the concepts from the comic industry, why don’t they just create their own? Probably because they are creatively bankrupt, with the exception of a few.
I think that the glee of anyone who is enjoying the Hulk’s poor reception is due to the fact that they wanted something different and better from this movie. The fact that it was so mishandled and the movie plot virtually eliminates any possibility of their being a sequel that actually makes sense or is a logical progression of events simple makes some fans angry. Face it, the sequel if there even is one, will just be your standard beat em up, with the story being secondary. There is nowhere to go to extend the first movie. The sequel will most likely just be the fact that there is a number 2 in the title. How are they supposed to introduce the Gray Hulk now that he was omitted in the first film? How are they supposed to do any story that ever involved Rick Jones? Glen Talbot? They don’t even exist as of current movie continuity. Even the great Peter David would be hard pressed to adapt Future Imperfect now that the ground work was blown to pieces. If there is a lesson to be learned here it’s that it’s a better idea to let someone who has written the character for 12 years write or at least help with the script, instead of letting someone who prior to scripting had never even read a comic in their lives. Ðámņ, it showed on the screen and I can see every reason in the world to be upset.
What irritates me the most is all this financial talking. I
I saw the movie on opening day after reading the novelization. My feelings were if they were able to deliver half of the backstory as the novel did it would be a good movie. To my delight it did.
While the movie was slow in the beginning I felt it set up the relationships and over 40 years of continuity necessary to make the world feel sympathetic to the Hulk’s plight. I mean the X-men movie was the same.
I think the problem lies in that everyone forgets that this movie may be the first time many people have seen the comic book interpretation of the Hulk. To the majority of people it will always be Lou Ferrigno’s version they think of and that Hulk died falling out of a plane for God’s sake.
I for one am looking forward to a sequel and hopefully we can pick up from the second half of the movie and continue moving forward.
The CGI and action was great once we got into it. The movie would have fared better being released in the fall.
P.S. I do agree that the panel thing got old real fast. But I liked the idea of Bruce’s father turning into an ersatz absorbing man.
I wish I hadn’t heard so much negative stuff about the movie. I haven’t gone to see the movie yet and now I don’t know if I want to see it in the theater.
I may just wait for the DVD.
I do agree with that people shouldn’t be reveling in the less than stellar box office though.
Maybe next time, they’ll say “Let’s let Peter David write the script, and we won’t screw with what he gives us. The hëll with what Marvel may want.”
Slap me so I wake up from this dream state to think that would ever happen.
This is all truly truly sad.
I feel the number one problem with the Hulk movie was EXPECTATION. Not saying that there shouldn’t be any…but People walkedi n with an attitude of what the movie “should” be.
a)”I thought DAVID Banner was supposed to be the HULK – he was on TV…This is Just WRONG!”
b)”This is going to be like Spiderman and the X-men right?”
c)”Why didn’t they tell me what happened – now I have to think and pay attention…”
now I understand that the Advertising of the Movie is part of the problem – watching all the commercials and seeing all the merchandise I would think this is family film/ popcorn blockbuster too…But having seen it twice now – it’s inspired – clever and borderline genius.
It’s not a popcorn movie – It would have been better for boxoffice if it was…But a truly subtle art house film with tons of symbolizism.
I kinda liked it the first time I saw it – but was taken aback because it didn’t follow my own expectations…But I saw it a second time, going in like I was expecting to see a David Lynch Movie…And that realllllllllly opened things up for me. Will this change the “problem” of poor box office and the general public’s expectations? No. It’s annoying to keep hearing people say “Well, I liked Spiderman – but I hated the Hulk.” Well that’s like me saying I liked the Godfather but I hated Donnie Brasco. It’s two different types of Stories within the Same genre/medium. Why should you expect the same movie?
In some respects maybe it would have been even better as an “R” rated indie film…or a “PG” rated slug match with the Leader…
At any rate despite their expectations everyone is entitled to their opinions…and so there’s mine! Any thoughts?
“c)”Why didn’t they tell me what happened – now I have to think and pay attention…””
Pay attention??? If you had to pay attention to follow what was going on, you had to be dead. The pacing is so slow that you have allll thhhhhe tiiimme iinnn tthee world to follow what is going on.
If you had to think to follow what is going on in that movie, I feel sorry for you.
Once more… AARRGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t know that I agree with PAD that having less money available to turn comic stories into movies is, necessarily, “not a good thing.” While I have enjoyed some superhero movies and have disliked others, I can’t say I’d be seriously troubled if another comic-based film was never made. I’d still see movies; I’d still read comics. So it goes. I fear, in fact, that comics might suffer (at least a bit) from the popularity of certain movies. Witness the silly things that were done to Mystique and Toad in “X-men Forever” in order to make them more like the movie characters; witness the bland costumes the X-men have been wearing for the last couple of years. I’m not opposed to comics-based films by definition–and I’ll certainly see those based on characters whose adventures I’ve long enjoyed–but the comics themselves will always be their first, their real homes. Oh…and I would rate Hulk about a 6.5 out of 10 (which, sadly, is slightly better than I would rate the current run on the Hulk comic).
A story and concept that has been good enough to last 40 years should be treated with more respect.
Aw, c’mon. We’re talking Hollywood. They retooled “The Scarlet Letter” to give it a happy ending. The upcoming “Tarzan” TV series features Jane as a NYC detective and Tarzan helping her solve crimes. More respect? The longer something has been around, the *more* likely they are to change it.
PAD
Guy Dynamite: How are they supposed to introduce the Gray Hulk now that he was omitted in the first film?
Luigi Novi: What does one have to do with the other? Why does the fact that he was omitted mean he can’t be in the second one? Just because he was initially gray in the comic doesn’t been initially gray in the movie series.
The movie sucked. The glee I feel has to do with sucky movies not making money.
If its failure keeps them from making another piece of crap like it, it was worth it. As long as they keep making good superhero movies like X2 I’m fine with it.
I enjoyed the Hulk a great deal. Lee and Schamus deserve credit for trying something different instead of cranking out a Spiderman clone. The Hulk is an interesting mix of drama, monster & action movie, but the slow pacing and the depressing characters ultimately killed its summer boxoffice. I thought Hulk was better than the first X-Men. Hopefully, the Hulk will get a sequel.
“Forget the comic fans, we’re going after the real market, movie goers.”
Seeing how Nu Marvel have been doing that themselves, can you really blame Hollywood?????
If Nu Marvel are changing all of their books to try to attract the movie goers/TV audiences, why should Hollywood feel like they cannot do the same when they adapt a comic book to the big screen????
**Guy Dynamite: How are they supposed to introduce the Gray Hulk now that he was omitted in the first film?
Luigi Novi: What does one have to do with the other? Why does the fact that he was omitted mean he can’t be in the second one? Just because he was initially gray in the comic doesn’t been initially gray in the movie series.**
Well they can re-introduce any character they want, even Rick Jones, but it just means that they have to give them new origins or reasons for showing up, which will make the movies even less faithful or respectful to the original source. What role would Rick Jones fulfill if he appeared in the sequel? What would be the reason for Gray Hulk to suddenly appear? Will he be a result of Banner’s botched attempt at curing himself? Who knows, but the further we go, the less the movie series has anything to do with the comic book Hulk, not that the first movie did, they freakin made him grow for heaven’s sake. It paid more homage to the t.v. show with stupid one liners than it did in adapting anything from the books. And ending the movie with ‘You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry!” Come on seriously, is it just because it was Ang Lee directing that this somehow became less laughable? The fact that the movie poster was an attempt to fool the public with a Ferrigno looking Hulk with a concealed face was a sign of things to come.
“It paid more homage to the t.v. show with stupid one liners than it did in adapting anything from the books.”
Heh, you must’ve watched a different movie than I did. The changes made to Hulk’s origin did not damage the character like some fanboys howl.
I’d rather a director take superheroes TOO seriously like Ang Lee did than CAMPY beyond belief ala the Batman and Robin movie.
Well, as others have said, the problem here with general perceptions of the movie are that many of them here on this website are likely from comic fans.
I truly hope some of you complaining about the changes for The Hulk aren’t the same ones that complained about such changes for Spider-Man.
Such changes in those two, and Daredevil as well, aren’t nearly as bad as what was done with the two X-Men movies overall. 🙂
Either way, I enjoyed both movies. I also enjoyed Daredevil and I expected to be disappointed by that one.
But, that’s the crux of the matter – expectation. If something isn’t up to expectations, it will, of course, suck. But that isn’t always the case.
Sure, The Hulk had it’s problems, but I give it thumbs-up overall – Lee tried some interesting things with style, I actually was surprised by Bana’s performance (I expected him to be horrible), and although the ending was confusing, it did still leave the door open for interesting things in sequals.
First off, let me say that the HULK movie was mediocre to weak. I liked the CGI HULK, the action was handled well, and Jennifer Connelly did what she could with a fairly limited role.
That said… The Hulk’s only real competition came from some mutated dogs (which the writers acknowledged was goofy when Betty’s father commented on the French Poodle) and a lightning thingie. I laughed — and not in a good way — when the general decided to show the Hulk the way out of the underground base, instead of letting the Hulk wear himself out, get trapped down there, or even mobilize the troops at the base exit. The character of XXXXX was one of those one-dimensional villains who exist solely to be hissed at and cheered when they die. And the ending was one of the most confusing, weak, anti-climactic movie finales I’ve ever seen. (Here’s a sick thought, though: Imagine that Bruce’s father/floating blob/jellyfish thing drained all the gamma radiation from Bruce. He knows it, he feels at peace. Then the military’s gamma bomb hits, and he’s right back where he was…) The comic book-style framing got annoying real fast, and I suspect Ang Lee was slumming here for the paycheck.
There will be more HULK movies, regardless of how this does, for one simple reason: There are other successful comic book movies. No matter how many superhero movies bomb (STEEL, SPAWN, the latter 2 BATMAN and SUPERMAN flicks), all studio execs have to do is point out how well SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN did and they’ll be greenlit in the hopes of having the next big thing. (This happens all the time with ’70s TV show movies: Plenty of bombs, but CHARLIE’S ANGELS and THE BRADY BUNCH guarantee more will be coming.)
P.S. The XXXXX was for the character — Talbot? — who was Betty’s ex, who tried to bribe Betty and splice Bruce. No redeeming qualities, so when he got killed — was he the movie’s only shown fatality, apart from the dogs? — people would cheer instead of blaming Bruce.
Gee, I liked the movie. It was different from most of the superhero fare available in movie form in that it focused on the idea that everyone has a darker side they’d like to let out, but don’t dare let that happen. In that concept you have a guy who can’t help what he becomes under stress, and has to admit that even though he’s afraid of it, he kinda likes it. That’s pretty bold considering that every article about comics and comic related movies you see in the mainstream press begins with the words, “Pow! Splat! Bam!”
I think comics have grown up, but other media generally have not kept pace. So there.
I really liked the HULK. I thought it was great.
But the one thing that did bother me was the “Absorbing Man” finale. And my non-comic book junkie friends agree. The “electric guy” just didn’t work with the rest of the film.
David Banner should have become the Abomination. Or to save special effects money, some sort of partial Abomination. Gen. Ross could have nuked them both to end the film, but both of them could have survived. The nuke could have turned David Banner into the full-fledged Abomination and come back for HULK III.
Is it possible to post here now? I couldn’t do it last night. I guess my main point was: the Hulk movie was awful. I can see the financial advantages in supporting superhero films; the comics industry could certainly use a boost. But if the end result is more bad movies like this, it’s just not worth it.
–Daniel
Okay this is not sloppy praise but my heartfealt opinion. PAD should write the screenplay. If any of you have read the novel, you will find it superior to the movie script. Now my favorite part (in the novel) was when Banner was talking to Talbot we were able to hear Banner’s thoughts. Now that’s hard to do in the movie, but they could have pulled it off and it would have been great. Also the flashback of when Banner and Betty were at the cabin did not reveal very much about their relationship in the movie. Again the novel made that scene make sense. I don’t know if it could happen or not but wouldn’t it be great?
The movie has made over $117 million, according to Dark Horizons. If it cost $150 million to make, it will easily surpass that amount internationally (I wouldn’t be surprised if it makes that much domestically) and therefore, it is a successful film, if one judges success financially.
As a film, I found it to be a thoughtful exercise and would recommend it to others.
Either way, I have no idea if there will be enough interest for a sequel…generally speaking, it seems to me that sequels are only guaranteed when it is believed that there is no chance it will not make more than it costs. I don’t know if I agree with the idea that it not doing sufficently well is bad for thoughtful comic book movies…Untouchable didn’t break the bank, either, and yet they still made Hulk. These things go in cycles. Marvel will eventually have to retrench if they expect to make further movies, just because the business is so fickle.
My apologies. I meant Unbreakable.