The Incredible Hulk - What went wrong?

[BMM]

Save for the noticeable lack of advertising prior to a month before the movie's release, I don't think anything went terribly wrong. Ang Lee’s Hulk didn’t produce phenomenal opening weekend numbers, and neither did this one. What were people expecting??? It’s not as though one Hulk movie opened with Spider-Man numbers and the other one didn’t. Has anyone considered that maybe, despite character recognition, people just aren't that interested in the Hulk, especially in a summer movie season as crowded as this one?

 

[Clark Kent]

With Batman begins, it had been 7 years since the last one

It was actually 8 years. Where the Hulk is concerned, I feel it should have been 10.

people just aren't that interested in the Hulk

.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I find hilarious that, the reason why the movie is "failing" is because of Ang Lee´s version.
Why can´t just be the movie that is not that good to begin with, it´s just a bunch of actions scenes glowed together by a lousy script and dull dialogue, even the acting was a mess from the likes of Norton, Roth and Hurt.

 

[antonydavanzo]

I find hilarious that, the reason why the movie is "failing" is because of Ang Lee´s version.
Why can´t just be the movie that is not that good to begin with, it´s just a bunch of actions scenes glowed together by a lousy script and dull dialogue, even the acting was a mess from the likes of Norton, Roth and Hurt.

So did yo not like the movie at all???
You gotta admit that MAYBE if this was the 1st Hulk film they did and they had bloody marketed this movie then it could have done a lot better.
PS Cool avatar

 

[El Payaso]

It's too bad that there was such a huge drop in the domestic box office after 1 week, similar to the first film. Here's what went wrong:

1) Late marketing - there should have been earlier hype built up for this movie. The trailers and TV spots came out too late. And there was not much promotional work done by the big name main actors, Edward Norton and Liv Tyler.

2) Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk - some people liked it others didn't. But whether you liked it or not, it was just 5 years ago and most people who had already seen a big screen version of the Hulk were not in a rush to go see what they believed would be more of the same thing. With Batman begins, it had been 7 years since the last one and audiences were well informed that it was going to be a restart. This new Hulk movie unfortunately did not send a clear message from it's title or trailers that it was a reboot. People may have assumed it was a sequel that they weren't interested in.

I guess it was the info about it. Because I highly doubt there's an exact limit between 5 and 7 years where people magically forget about the last movie they've seen about a specific character.

In fact, even when I heard hundreds of people, TV reviewers etc saying Batman Begins was a prequel, aty least the "begins" part informed it was something about the origin and not what happened after Robin the annoying wonder and fat-girl appeared. I'm not sure if the name of Nolan was known enough - or at least more than Leterrier's - to make people realise it was a serious movie what they were talking about.

And yes, I saw little marketing about TIH.

What is it about these studios who feel that they have to go to either one extreme or the other?

.

I call it the "E. Wile Coyote Mentality." Instead of correcting what was wrong with something, they try a different thing.

I don't know about TIH. It felt a little rushy and choppy but it was nothing to give bad word of mouth about. It had tons of actions and great CGI.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the reaction that I've got from my friend (and me) was this:

"The movie...was okay."

Okay being good to them, okay being okay to me.

When people talked about 'good word of mouth', I didn't believe that TIH would have it. Kung Fu Panda had it, and Batman Begins had it. They had that little special something that made theme special.

Incred Hulk is missing something. It's better than 2003's Hulk in some parts, but not all. I prefer the actors/acting in Ang Lee's version by far. I hated William Hurt in this one. I love Jennifer Connelly. Norton didn't seem to be 'in to it' despite what people say.

I'm just saying that this flick is good, but it's souless. it's not striking the right chords with the audience. I think it did for the first weekend, but I don't know.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

So did yo not like the movie at all???

It´s watchable by the action scenes, but the more i think about it...no, it´s not a good movie or a good adaptation.
There is so much wrong about it....

You gotta admit that MAYBE if this was the 1st Hulk film they did and they had bloody marketed this movie then it could have done a lot better.

Sure, if it was the 1st...but it wasn´t.
Maybe, just maybe, people that have to look it the other way, because everyone knows that Lee´s Hulk is growing up on people, so, maybe this one is "failing" because is not like the Ang Lee movie.

PS Cool avatar

Thanks

 

[SFII]

first of all, the movie itself was great! it irks me to read all this criticizm from Iron Man(and Batman) Fanboys about how TIH just isn't a good movie and that's why it fails, blah blah.
no. TIH was great. there's nothing wrong about it. no changes are needed.
the reason why TIH isn't doing well at the BO is because of the bad timing. releasing this movie in the midst of all the other big movies surrounding it. perhaps, if TIH was released at the beginning(like Iron Man) or at the end of these summer movies, it would've performed better. and also the fact that TIH was released too soon after Ang Lee's movie, is a factor.
and another point...
basically, other than superhero fanboys such as myself and all of us in here, the general public doesn't know why a new Hulk movie had to be rushed out this soon. obviously us fanboys know that Marvel rushed this new Hulk reboot out inorder to setup The Avengers movie set to be released in 2011(i think). otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a rush to get this Hulk movie out. infact, i don't even know if it even mattered to have this new Hulk movie come out Before the Avengers to set it up. it's just still too soon of a gap from Ang Lee's movie that still relatively fresh in most people's minds.
I think Marvel should've/could've waited on this Hulk movie. they should've waited until after they released Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man 2. and maybe by then, the world would be ready for a new Hulk movie. which could still serve as a setup for The Avengers movie. i don't understand why Marvel is putting all this pressure on themselves by pigeonholing themselves into a set time-constraint for The Avengers release. just let things unravel with the flow of the market, and be flexible with these release dates. it would be more rewarding financially for them, and satisfactorily for us.

 

[Clark Kent]

i don't understand why Marvel is putting all this pressure on themselves by pigeonholing themselves into a set time-constraint for The Avengers release.

Simple. Because they're f***ing idiots, that's why.

 

[Mikelus]

People prefer more relatable, real characters that CGI monsters, King Kong is another example, no matter how good these movies are, people are not that enthusiastic. Transformers was different, it had the curiosity factor of seeing the "robots in disguise" for the first time in live-action, despite a very mediocre script.

 

[Comicfan]

Save for the noticeable lack of advertising prior to a month before the movie's release, I don't think anything went terribly wrong. Ang Lee’s Hulk didn’t produce phenomenal opening weekend numbers, and neither did this one. What were people expecting??? It’s not as though one Hulk movie opened with Spider-Man numbers and the other one didn’t. Has anyone considered that maybe, despite character recognition, people just aren't that interested in the Hulk, especially in a summer movie season as crowded as this one?

Both movies are basically on the same level in terms of BO, basically, people who are in one way or another interested in the character will go to see it, But the GA isn´t interested about ANY hulk movie, hulk is popular among fans, but he is not that popular to draw audience

The thing is that people "half know" about the hulk, they know the basics, and not what makes the character great (HULK SMASH! is not one of the things that makes it interesting), so they have preconcived notions on what to expect from the movie, and good or bad WOM it won´t mather for the GA

I find hilarious that, the reason why the movie is "failing" is because of Ang Lee´s version.
Why can´t just be the movie that is not that good to begin with, it´s just a bunch of actions scenes glowed together by a lousy script and dull dialogue, even the acting was a mess from the likes of Norton, Roth and Hurt.

the movie wasn´t bad either, its just that the character is not appealing to GA

Look for the GA TIH is not a "MUST SEE" movie, Indiana Jones was, Wall-E is, Kung fu panda is

GA is not like us, they are not expecting "the next" hulk movie, as the movie of the year (like some of us), for them TIH is just a regular movie, and its only one of the many options in the cinemas

(yeah, I know Iron man its similar to Hulk in the popularity department... why did it do so well... I have no idea, I liked TIH more than IM... many has such good legs because it was one of the first movies of the summer?, I have no idea)


And viral marketing won´t make any difference, viral marketing is aimed at the fans, not the GA, do you think regular moviegoers are aware of all the viral marketing of TDK?

 

[El Payaso]

TIH might have lacked of the special something to become a truly great art piece but come on, it was very good.

 

[Evil Twin]

I'd contrast Transformers to TIH in that Shia LeBeouf was front and center during the climax. And, as much as I dislike the cliche, I think the fact that Spider-Man and Iron Man became unmasked for the climax to connect the audience to the actors that they cared about is part of the issue with the CGI Hulk battling another CGI character at the climax. Subtracting two main actors and substituting two CGI creations at the climax hasn't been done in any other film and I'm wondering if there's not good reason for that.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

TIH might have lacked of the special something to become a truly great art piece but come on, it was very good.

No, it just really wasn't. It was a bland boring movie at its core that didn't say or do anything of great importance. So then, you're just there to look at the visuals, and even those fall way short. The CGI was bad.

 

[Chewy]

No, it just really wasn't. It was a bland boring movie at its core that didn't say or do anything of great importance. So then, you're just there to look at the visuals, and even those fall way short. The CGI was bad.

Aren't you the guy who posted a video of himself smashing two action figures together and compared it to TIH?

 

[Comicfan]

No, it just really wasn't. It was a bland boring movie at its core that didn't say or do anything of great importance. So then, you're just there to look at the visuals, and even those fall way short. The CGI was bad.

It was a great movie, it simply wasn´t "INCREDIBLE"

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

Aren't you the guy who posted a video of himself smashing two action figures together and compared it to TIH?

Yes, basically explaining in short what TIH was all about in a humerous manner. Yes, it was like watching some kid smash together action figures or vehicles.

What me posting that video as humor has anything to do with the snooze fest that TIH was, I have no idea ...

 

[Lestat74]

I'm just not sure that anyone outside of online fanboy circles is really going to consider TIH a failure in any way. Maybe it's because it was really only the online fans who ever considered that TIH would make $200 million or more. Most buzz and box office analysts thought that this movie would crash and burn a fiery death in the wake of people's dislike of the 2003 version. The fact that that did NOT happen was seen as something of a small miracle. So instead of damning the Marvel marketing dept, everyone here should be praising them for doing such a turnaround in the last few weeks and getting people to go see this flick opening weekend. I mean, this is what Box Office Report thought TIH would do in their summer movie predictions; they thought it would only make $110 mil. TOTAL

14. The Incredible Hulk (June 13, Universal) -- $110 m ($47 m opening)

Do you get a second chance to make a first impression? While I still think Ang Lee's Hulk is an extremely underrated film, I think the fact that it made 47% of its total domestic gross in its first 3 days pretty much sums up what most people thought of it. Fans of the character will turn out again, but I have a hard time seeing the film breaking out with less frequent moviegoers, especially with opening weekend competition this time around from The Happening.

And that's just one example I read. So no one outside the comic book/ movie online fans were really expecting much of anything here, so the fact that it ends up doing pretty OK and is mostly well liked will be seen as another feather in Marvel's cap this summer.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, basically explaining in short what TIH was all about in a humerous manner. Yes, it was like watching some kid smash together action figures or vehicles.

What me posting that video as humor has anything to do with the snooze fest that TIH was, I have no idea ...

If that was humour for you, that speaks volumes about your perceptions of what's "bland boring."

 

[JackMercy]

I just don't think people should have issues about the CGI because that's as good as our current special effects with CGI are going to get. Did people in the 50's complain about Harryhausen's stop motion animated skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts? Did people complain about Lucas' creature costumes in Star Wars in the 70's? I think people are being way too picky nowadays and should just let it go. The Incredible Hulk is a very good action movie as they go. It's alot better than Bay's movie last year which was a clusterf...well you know what in terms of characters and plot. I cared more about Bruce Banner and his plight with controlling the monster inside of him than I ever did with Spike (Sam) Witwicky motivation of wanting to get the girl.

(Regarding your first bolded quote) Why not?

Why become complacent about art?

I was having this discussion with a friend recently. If film is art, we should all demand the best of our artists, all the time, correct? If CGI is not serving a purpose in a particular manner or format, or artistic interpretation, why shouldn't we complain about it? Do you go into a museum and "turn off your brain" when you look at Rembrandt? Do you "turn off your brain" when you read Shakespeare or Jane Austen? Why should we have to turn off our brain in any cinema, narratively or aesthetically??

Like it or not, our brains are processing all these images that come into our head at 24fps, and shock -- horror -- the brain doesn't actually like, or even understand all of them...

I don't think many people are being picky -- they have serious, valid issues about the entertainment that they're being force-fed, and they're being honest about how they are or are not identifying consciously or psychologically with many of these CGI endeavors.

Whatever the issues with Bay's Transformers and its narrative, I'd argue ILM's work on that film is phenomenal, really recognizing the gears and inner workings of how such a creature would transform. Rhythm & Hues' work on this Hulk film --while greatly improved in the final cut vs. the initial theatrical trailer-- is nowhere near that good, and I would argue, nowhere near as convincing as ILM's work on the first Hulk.

And I'd be willing to bet that, in retrospect, in days, months, years down the line, anyone who works in the visual effects industry would tell you the same thing, if asked about it.

So maybe Rhythm & Hues didn't have the resources that ILM has, you say? Well, if I were Marvel, I'd have wanted to do everything I could to make this Hulk film superior to and more accessible to audiences than the first in every way, which includes striving for the best visual effects possible -- which is why I'm kind of stunned that they didn't do everything possible to rope in ILM or Weta for this, especially when they already had them working on Iron Man...

That's my main problem with this movie, the whole way it was treated. I just get this feeling that Marvel thought they could throw something half-cocked out there (including a drastic re-edit in the last few weeks of post), and just because it was different in look and tone than the last Hulk, it would be more successful... not so, guys, not so...

 

[Hmarrs]

The Incredible Hulk was Wicktiy,Wickity WACK!!!!
I don't care who agrees with me or who tells me off.The movie was boring,slow and freakin depressing.It made me yearn for Ang Lee's Hulk and that's saying alot.
I posted it several months ago.
I said we will wind up comprimising quality for bells and whistles.
Reminds me of the difference between X-men 2 and X-men 3.
Ang Lee's Hulk may have missed a little on the mark but it was sophisticated.An adult movie.
This movie was like watching a freakin Ninja Turtles movie.It was kiddish.The Hulk looked freakin WACK!!!He looked like a cartoon.I felt like I was watching a Green Rodger Rabbit.
And all those people that complained about the first Hulk looking like a big Baby Huey.Yeah well this one looked worse those scenes where he looks at Betty ...Like in the cave he looked stupid.He looked like a freakin puppy.
Then there were some other scenes like on the college campus where he is looking at Betty after he kicked Blonsky he looked like Robert Redford.I remember thinking the Hulk looks better looking than Edward Norton.What the flip is that?
Edward Norton=Bruce Banner was okay.Not better than Eric Bana just different.
Wiiliam Hurt=General Ross was a Phosocial path a madman not better but different.He seemed more like a villian.
Liv Tyler=Betty Ross seemed like she truly loved him.A little bit of an airhead I thought.Conelly seemed sronger.I think betty Betty should be stronger than Bruce as a character not weaker.
Personality wise.
First Hulk would whip second Hulks Butt with a freakin TANK!!!!!The New Hulk was weak and sorry.
Problems with the first Hulk movie...
First Hulk movie had to much build up and a dumb villian.The ending was a let down.They dropped the ball at the end.
Problems with the second Hulk movie
New Hulk movie was slow and the CGI stunk!!!!!
I found the Dog fight in Hulk one better than the fight with Abomination in Hulk 2.
Both movies stunk as far as origin they failed to deliver.Give us a freakin Gamma Bomb.The Hulk is strong character he needs a strong origin a Bomb is what I think of as far as the birth of the Hulk is concerned it fits.Don't tell me it can't be done find a reason.The bomb mixed with a serum whatever.The origin of the character is the foundation of the Character.In your mind you always refer back to it as the source.They say the Gamma bomb won't work but they want us to believe the chair origin or the big ball origin.STUPID!!!! Don't tell me the Gamma Bomb won't work make it work find a reason.They obviously don't know what to do with the Hulk.How about sticking to the source it has endured for 40-50 years!!!!!Get a clue.Iron man was perfect except him revealing his identity.
Origin was in tune with the comic it fit.
If anyone wants to tell me off then do it.But the numbers don't lie!!!!I'm only sorry for the HULK!!!He is a mess.
Their only hope is to put him in an Avengers movie fix his origin make it accurate and fix his look.Wait a few years and make Avenger spinoff movies!!!
If not it will continue to fail!!!

 

[Mercurius]

I find hilarious that, the reason why the movie is "failing" is because of Ang Lee´s version.
Why can´t just be the movie that is not that good to begin with, it´s just a bunch of actions scenes glowed together by a lousy script and dull dialogue, even the acting was a mess from the likes of Norton, Roth and Hurt.

We haven't watched the same movie, then.

I'm quite bewildered that someone can say all these things about that movie.

Bad script and dialogue you find in FF 1 and 2, not here, IMO.

 

[Mercurius]

The Incredible Hulk was Wicktiy,Wickity WACK!!!!
I don't care who agrees with me or who tells me off.The movie was boring,slow and freakin depressing.It made me yearn for Ang Lee's Hulk and that's saying alot.
I posted it several months ago.
I said we will wind up comprimising quality for bells and whistles.
Ang Lee's Hulk may have missed a little on the mark but it was sophisticated.An adult movie.
This movie was like watching a freakin Ninja Turtles movie.It was kiddish.The Hulk looked freakin WACK!!!He looked like a cartoon.I felt like I was watching a Green Rodger Rabbit.
And all those people that complained about the first Hulk looking like a big Baby Huey.Yeah well this one looked worse those scenes where he looks at Betty ...Like in the cave he looked stupid.He looked like a freakin puppy.
Then there were some other scenes like on the college campus where he is looking at Betty after he kicked Blonsky he looked like Robert Redford.I remember thinking the Hulk looks better looking than Edward Norton.What the flip is that?
Edward Norton=Bruce Banner was okay.Not better than Eric Bana just different.
Wiiliam Hurt=General Ross was a Phosocial path a madman not better but different.He seemed more like a villian.
Liv Tyler=Betty Ross seemed like she truly loved him.A little bit of an airhead I thought.Conelly seemed sronger.I think betty Betty should be stronger than Bruce as a character not weaker.
Personality wise.
First Hulk would whip second Hulks Butt with a freakin TANK!!!!!New Hulk weak and sorry.
Problems with the first Hulk movie...
First Hulk movie had to much build up and a dumb villian.The ending was a let down.They dropped the ball at the end.
Problems with the second Hulk movie
New Hulk movie was slow and the CGI stunk!!!!!
I found the Dog fight in Hulk one better than the fight with Abomination in Hulk 2.
Both movies stunk as far as origin they failed to deliver.Give us a freakin Gamma Bomb.The Hulk is strong character he needs a strong origin a Bomb is what I think of as far as the birth of the Hulk is concerned it fits.Don't tell me it can't be done find a reason.The bomb mixed with a serum whatever.The origin of the character is the foundation of the Character.In your mind you always refer back to it as the source.They say the Gamma bomb won't work but they want us to believe the chair origin or the big ball origin.STUPID!!!! Don't tell me the Gamma Bomb won't work make it work find a reason.They obviously don't know what to do with the Hulk.How about sticking to the source it has endured for 40-50 years!!!!!Get a clue.Iron man was perfect except him revealing his identity.
Origin was in tune with the comic it fit.
If anyone wants to tell me off then do it.But the numbers don't lie!!!!I'm only sorry for the HULK!!!He is a mess.
Their only hope is to put him in an Avengers movie fix his origin make it accurate and fix his look.Wait a few years and make Avenger spinoff movies!!!
If not it will continue to fail!!!

Two serious problems in your personal rant against the movie:

a) BO tells NOTHING about the quality of a movie.

b) Ang Lee's Hulk wasn't sophisticated at all. People repeat that easy remark because Lee is known for sophisticated movies.

Not that one. And if you need some proof, just watch his goofy and corny "comicbook" scenes.

 

[Hmarrs]

I find hilarious that, the reason why the movie is "failing" is because of Ang Lee´s version.
Why can´t just be the movie that is not that good to begin with, it´s just a bunch of actions scenes glowed together by a lousy script and dull dialogue, even the acting was a mess from the likes of Norton, Roth and Hurt.

BINGO!!!I agree.

 

[Hmarrs]

My question is what the heck is wrong with the source material???
The origin is the foundation.It's like a house if the foundation is weak so is the house.
I also again thought the CGI was super weak.It does not look like an eight year progression.