Not true. The negative impression for this movie started back in Jan/Feb of 2003 with the superbowl trailer. It made 60 someting million it's first weekend which is very meh, compared to what Spider-Man made just a year earlier. Let's not forget that Hulk is Marvels second biggest character after Spider-Man. The prediction for Hulks opening weekend was sopposed to be around 80 million.Smashlilman said:That's so not true. Ang's Hulk failed because it was a terrible movie and got bad word of mouth. It had good opening weekend number. It's just that when people saw it they started telling other not to go see it. I personally didn't even go to see the Hulk in theaters on that Saturday. My friend saw it on Friday and told me not to go see it because its was boring. I didn't see Hulk until it was on HBO/Showtime. (Did the same thing with Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance)
You actaully just helped my point by stating that bad WOM killed it, so the b.o was NOT good.
It was NOT a bad movie, it was just a bad Hulk movie and deceived the general public with it's advertising.
Kind of agree and disagree with both of you. The suberbowl stuff did lead to negative buzz that did leak into the mainstream. I remember Conan did a joke about the Hulk CGI looking like crap. However the movie was by no means doomed at that point. It opened to $62 million with a strong $24 million Friday and then fell pretty sharply from day to day (basically poor word of mouth was apparent even within that opening weekend). Hulk's opening weekend would adjust to something like $80 to $90 million today with inflation accounted for, without considering something like 3D pricing. And from there on the drops were horrible. 70% drop on second weekend. It barely made any money from that point onwards. But you can hardly say something had a meh opening weekend by comparing it to a movie like Spider-Man which had just shattered the previous opening record.
I will disagree with Smashlilman in that i dont think its a terrible movie at all and with a few reservations i really like it (and i think there was quite a bit that i think was done better in Hulk than in The Avengers). However it was a terrible movie to try and launch a blockbuster franchise from and it was a terrible movie to most of the general public. It was an oddity with niche appeal launched as a mass consumer product. A $130 million arthouse film about a giant green monster.
I like the imaginary friend idea also. Even in the tv series Banner rarely refers to his alter ego as the Hulk; calling him "the creature' 95% of the time. In the Avengers though, from Hill to Cap , they all sounded pretty natural referring to Hulk as Hulk, so i think it's a moot point...at this point.
I think we can safely infer that from the time of TIH to TA, the word "Hulk" had become a catchphrase started by the witnesses at the university. It's believable, considering how quickly these days a media-spawned catchphrase can become widely adopted.
It makes even more sense for Banner to rarely, if ever, use that term (vs. "the other guy"), but since the Hulk often is an expression of Banner's subconscious, it makes sense for him to refer to himself as "Hulk" as a term he's likely heard on TV hundreds of times.
Well said and I totally agree. This makes absolute sense and can work towards the movies logic.
The first time Banner read or heard the news report from TIH calling his other self "Hulk", maybe his Hulk self picked it up on a subconscious level thus..."Hulk Smash" Abomination.