I know this is an ugly thing to say on a Hulk forum, but plain and simple, Hulk is not an interesting enough character to build a smart, well-made movie around. When fighting he is a dumb, gigantic beast entirely lacking in complexity. As a human, he is constantly fighting the same inner battle, one that grows stale and tired about 20 minutes into any movie, that isn't easy for most people to relate to (outside of those with anger management issues perhaps), and continues down the same path over and over.
Except, that, they've already done that. But you do come close to raising an interesting point. The best films in this genre have consistently been those with a strong focus on adapting the central thems and concepts that these characters themselves are based upon. (This is often counterintuitive when weighed against the primary concern of the average fanboy, notably a fixation on superficial, ancillary details ["The red is too dark!", or "He doesn't have the right chin!"].) You've touched on that here:
Batman is a completely human character who struggles to maintain a very ambiguous moral line with his actions.
Spiderman is someone who grapples with unexpected powers and the responsibility that comes with it.
Iron Man, in a similar vein, is a character that abused power and is trying to redeem those abuses.
In all these cases, the directors were able to pare down 40/50+ years of convoluted comic book history and reestablish the basic archetypes and motifs in a contemporarily relevant setting. Which, when viewing these characters and their worlds within the context of cultural mythology, is exactly what happenswith common thematic material through success generations of interpreters.
Now, the Hulk is different from his superhero compatriots, in some fundamentally (and potentially off-putting ways). Yes, he is ultimately the good guy, but it's a different type of heroism; flashes of good and happy coincidence (the bad guys happen to be the ones pissing him off, yeah!) emerging from a generally misunderstood monster. Hulk's a good guy, and he's content to go about his merry way, if only those annoying tanks and helicopters would just leave him alone. Of similar interest is the character of Bruce Banner, and the dichotomy between the psychologically damaged man and limitlessly-empowered ****** who inhabit the same body.
One of the problems with the Hulk, in creating stories for him, is the desire to make him too overtly the hero; too much Superman, not enough King Kong. This was partly the issue with TIH, in that the set-up to the final confrontation didn't quite ring true for the character. It's a difficult matter to balance the necessity of the the typical good guy/badguy superpowered action sequence with the proper characterizations. Leterrier thought the action would speak for itself, but, apparently that isn't the case (and he isn't a particularly imaginative action director either; he wasted the Abomination).
But I will concede that the character of the Hulk may simply not resonate with the target summer audience. This is evidenced by the lack of interest in the proper Hulk film of 2003 - though I personally was thoroughly entertained, even in the parts of my brain that crave adrenaline and spectactle. (Surprising, maybe, that the "talky, pretentious, ponderous" Ang Lee crafts a better action sequence than the supposed-"action guy" Louis Leterrier
.) But the lack of interest in this new film, I think, boils down to it's mediocre quality, and the subsequently apathetic word of mouth.
I wonder if an Ang Lee crafted sequel, able to introduce the Hulk sooner into the film (though, hopefully retaining the the juicier psychological themes that are at the heart of the story), would have been more or less successful than TIH - by retaining those who appreciated the first film whilst drawing back those interested in a more "popcorn" feel. We'll nevedr know.
:
