In the tradition of the Box Office Mojo Forums
.
Also first, let me just say, that this is not a Hulk bashing thread. Unlike 2003, I really enjoyed this movie. I liked it a lot more. If you do not believe me, read
my official review.
The point is that I think its worth discussing kind of if you feel the movie had flaws or problems that maybe could've affected its word of mouth with audiences, or the continued general apathy toward the character of the Hulk to general moviegoing audiences. When the Hulk is apparently supposed to one of the most popular and well known characters of all time.
People didn't want to address or brushed aside some of the problems a couple weeks ago, and never even considered they would come into play, which the did.
One of the biggest problems with the movie is confusing editing. At the beginning of the movie, the editing could've done a little more to separate itself from the first movie. Despite the opening credit sequences, it starts with Bruce in South America like the end of the first movie. This kind of makes people think it could be a sequel.
That's the other problem the movie faced, the sequelitis. Watching the movie its clearly NOT a sequel to 2003 Hulk. This is its own separate universe, continuity, and storyline for the Hulk. However, while we might get that, it was somewhat vague in the trailers and TV spots. And also, I think that there was some trepidation at Marvel in not just coming out and saying THIS IS NOT A SEQUEL! It seems they would say everything but that. Which I don't really get. Maybe there was the sense of not making it sound like a total separation for whatever reason, but it was. The arctic scene pre or right after the credits could've established more that this would not be a sequel to the audience.
Also, gas prices and the economy don't come into play here. If those were really the biggest issues facing movies and BO, then numerous BO hits that have been released in May and June would not be hits.
Another editing problem with the movie, not that it felt gutted, but you have Ty Burrell playing Leonard Samson. Going into the movie and watching it cold, you would never know this. No one ever says his name in the movie. As a character he serves virtually no consequence or purpose in the movie in the narrative or running time. Basically, the Ty Burrell character could've been easily cut and the movie would've lost nothing. OK now, if there's an argument that keeping him in the current edit shows, "Well Betty has moved on with her life and she's happy and stuff, and Bruce is sad when he sees her with another man." OK well, as soon as Betty sees Bruce, Ty Burrell does absolutely nothing. Betty no longer cares about Ty Burrell's character as soon as Bruce enters back into her life. When they are on the run, they easily start smooching and would've had infidelous sex had Bruce not gotten "excited".
It's very annoying that this happens, and the issue of Betty's boyfriend is never brought up. You would think Bruce would at least mention her to something. Supposedly there is something that happens that was left on the cutting room floor that would show Samson giving away Bruce to the feds. This is not clear at all watching the movie. It's a little ambiguous, but for the most part it comes off as very confusing as to how the military were able to find Bruce and Betty at the campus at all. As far as I remember, in the cut we saw, Samson never saw Bruce and wouldn't know he was there.
MARKETING
The big play this year was for Iron Man. Pretty much all the hype, marketing, and build up went to Iron Man for this summer. It was a move that paid off, but unfortunately partly at the expense of The Incredible Hulk. However, this was a smart move. Iron Man did not have the baggage of the Hulk going in. Iron Man got the better marketing and hype, and Iron Man performed tremendously. People got excited about this movie and were ready for a movie like Iron Man to come out.
Here is something else people wanted to ignore on the road to June 13. Where was the marketing? Some publications were addressing that no one knows the movie is coming. By about mid-March we'd virtually seen little to nothing in way of news stories, posters, one sheets, et all. Some stuff and screenshots on the net, some casting announcements, the con panels, but that's it. Very little to go on with the mainstream moviegoing public. The first teaser trailer came out only 3 months before the movie's release. I think it came too late. 2003 movie is why. By virtue of the 2003 movie, the marketing needed to get the drop on audiences a lot quicker, let the audiences know this movie was coming and when, and say we are going to do the Hulk right this time. I don't believe 3 months was long enough to convince audiences, and it turned out many who predicted this were right.
Right before the movie's release, TV spots started spoiling the Iron Man/Tony Stark cameo, which gets one of the biggest reactions out of the entire movie. The cameo had been widely talked about at that point, William Hurt publically revealed it in an MTV interview. So it wasn't like some best kept secret at that point. So if you are going to exploit the popularity of Iron Man/Tony Stark in the marketing like that, it could've happened like right after Iron man's $101 million opening.
Maybe that's another thing that could've helped the movie. More cross-promotion between Iron Man and Hulk, however then that could've been problematic because you could maybe say that Hulk could tarnish Iron Man.
CONTROVERSY
The ultimate affect this had is very arguable. But the movie had a bit of a cloud over it when you had all this news coming out about the disagreements. Sure a lot of movies go through this. And the media more than likely blew it out of proportion. However, Norton did very little to promote the movie publically, he did little to talk about it, and was mostly quiet about it. Perhaps a better compromise could've been made in the cuts. As the movie stands now, it doesn't necessarily need to be deeper, but it could've used a couple more scenes to clarify what was going on. And the arctic scene sounds like it definitely should not have left.
Overblown or not, the controversy didn't help the movie too much. And it kind of set in weird ideas in the heads of fans of exactly what kind of movie we might be getting. Not saying that's true, but the mainstream media even at its least credible still has a big influence on the way people think.
IN CONCLUSION
With Iron Man continuing to rake in the dough, The Incredible Hulk will not turn out to be a terrible loss. It will still take in, maybe close to $140-150 million US. And I think no matter what Marvel comes out ahead this summer. It was a better movie, but audiences and critics still weren't convinced and generally are still apathetic about the character.
This puts a question mark of the future of these characters on film. Everyone says they signed up for three movies or had plans for multiple movies (as did the actors for the 2003 movie). I have no idea where Norton's head could be at with the character right now. Would he still want to play the character again somewhere else?
And what do you do with the Hulk? Everyone knew a new Hulk movie could not cost less. This movie cost more than the first one. It'd be very hard to make an Incredible Hulk sequel that was cheaper. Especially if you want Norton and co. to return.
People say Hulk and Avengers. Or Hulk and Iron Man 2. But would Hulk help or hurt the movies if he had a presence there? Tough call.
