What's the latest movie you've seen?

~~Leo656~~ · 01-09-2021, 11:59 AM

Hulk (2003) apparently cost about $137 million, and only made back about $245 million, so... no. Not even close to "successful". This was still back when the idea of a comic book movie making a billion or anywhere close was a total joke, but it would have needed to make almost four hundred or at least three-fifty to be "successful". It was expected to be HUGE, the biggest movie of the year, and it just wasn't. It made pretty much all its money on opening weekend and after that it sank like a stone. I went to a screening on opening night, and the crowd was HOT. They were doing T-shirt giveaways, people were cheering... then after it was over, people were laughing. Definitely didn't go over the way it was obviously expected and intended to.

It took a rather severe critical beating, as well, although that's always the least important thing because 99% of those rubes don't read comics anyway. The critics' and general audience consensus was "Too much talking, not enough smashing" (that's actually a pull quote from that stupid Rotten Tomatoes website). Basically, it was too highbrow for an audience who really just wanted two hours of "Shrek Goes Wild". But it was I'd say about 98% faithful to the comics, certain stories in particular.

Having watched it again recently for the first time in a while, I actually liked it more than I'd remembered, although it is very long and talky and the CGI is abysmal in spots. But it tried really hard to be "a real movie" and not a live-action cartoon, and I liked the quiet intensity that Eric Bana brought to it. He's still the best Banner, for my money.

I prefer when these things try to be "real movies" and aim higher that the standard cartoonish super-hero fare - otherwise what's the point of making a live action film in a "real-world" setting with real actors? Just make a cartoon if you want to be cheesy and silly - so for my money, warts and all, this was still the best "Hulk" movie.

The Incredible Hulk (2008 version) was considered a "soft reboot" so they could just get right to the "HULK SMASH!" stuff immediately and do a lot more of it, and to their credit it does a good job with that. Financially, it cost more than the first (around $150 million, although with five years of inflation it was probably about the same) and only brought in about $265 million. So again, adjusting for about five years of inflation, the cost/reward was about Exactly The Same as the first movie. Critically, it was received almost exactly the same, as well, despite being a very different kind of movie. So that's weird. It's weird that a movie made as an "apology/do-over" for the first movie was nonetheless received Exactly The Same Way across the board, albeit for different reasons.

This would at least partially explain why there were no more solo Hulk movies, regardless of the sticky distribution rights issue between Disney and Universal. Bottom line, if the movies had made more money, they'd have made more of them, a'la Spider-Man and Disney having to play nice with Sony over him. "Incredible" was supposed to be the "We're Sorry" Hulk movie, with lots of CGI action and comedic bits and when you watch the two back-to-back it really does feel like the second film was made with a checklist of sorts, like "Where the first movie Zigged, we Zag. Then we'll make $400 million." But it didn't work.

Critically, both films were slammed for "not being funny enough".

Which explains why 1. The MCU Hulk in the Avengers movies was so well-received, and 2. Why only people who read comics have any business getting paid to review comic book movies. The Hulk is not a comedic character. But the first movie was being compared to the first Spider-Man film and "Incredible" was being compared to the first "Iron Man", which while good movies were still pretty thickly-covered in cheese. But critics get it into their head that "That's what ALL these movies are supposed to be, Big Dumb Fun (emphasis on "Dumb")" and so whenever a comic book movie tries to take itself a little more seriously, they point at it and laugh for "missing the point." And I'm over here like "No, YOU missed the point, f*ckface." Drives me nuts. The Hulk is a tragic character with horror elements, not a generic super-hero. His movies SHOULD be completely different. BUT, money talks and bullsh*t walks, and that's why we'll never get another Hulk movie anytime soon.

Personally, I think both Hulk movies were about as good from very different directions, although I prefer the first one (awful CGI aside, but I can overlook that since the story is good). I do concede that "Incredible" was more of a crowd-pleaser and had a lot more action, but some of the hokey-jokey bits really didn't land, for me, and I prefer the darker, more cerebral approach of the first. It really did try to be something more unique, whereas the second film didn't aim very high and settled for just being "Super-Hero Movie 32-B". As far as fidelity goes, again they're about equally as faithful to the comics from different directions, as they each pull from different runs of the book but adapt them pretty well.

The second one is definitely more action-packed, but I like the first movie's cast WAY better and the story puts it over, for me. But I don't hate the second one or anything, it's fine. I actually like it a lot more than most people seem to, but like I said if nothing else the A++ cast of the first has me lean hard towards that one. You ain't replacing Sam Elliot, sorry. And I like Liv Tyler but Connelly was way better, I thought. And of course Bana. I like Norton and I appreciate that he tried to "save" the second film by basically being a huge dick to everyone and trying to rewrite it himself on-set to be less of a cartoon, but it didn't come together in the final cut AND he basically committed career suicide by doing so. It was an earnest attempt, though. He's "fine" I just thought Bana got more out of it.

They're both pretty underrated movies.

01-09-2021, 11:59 AM	#11
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Hulk (2003) apparently cost about $137 million, and only made back about $245 million, so... no. Not even close to "successful". This was still back when the idea of a comic book movie making a billion or anywhere close was a total joke, but it would have needed to make almost four hundred or at least three-fifty to be "successful". It was expected to be HUGE, the biggest movie of the year, and it just wasn't. It made pretty much all its money on opening weekend and after that it sank like a stone. I went to a screening on opening night, and the crowd was HOT. They were doing T-shirt giveaways, people were cheering... then after it was over, people were laughing. Definitely didn't go over the way it was obviously expected and intended to. It took a rather severe critical beating, as well, although that's always the least important thing because 99% of those rubes don't read comics anyway. The critics' and general audience consensus was "Too much talking, not enough smashing" (that's actually a pull quote from that stupid Rotten Tomatoes website). Basically, it was too highbrow for an audience who really just wanted two hours of "Shrek Goes Wild". But it was I'd say about 98% faithful to the comics, certain stories in particular. Having watched it again recently for the first time in a while, I actually liked it more than I'd remembered, although it is very long and talky and the CGI is abysmal in spots. But it tried really hard to be "a real movie" and not a live-action cartoon, and I liked the quiet intensity that Eric Bana brought to it. He's still the best Banner, for my money. I prefer when these things try to be "real movies" and aim higher that the standard cartoonish super-hero fare - otherwise what's the point of making a live action film in a "real-world" setting with real actors? Just make a cartoon if you want to be cheesy and silly - so for my money, warts and all, this was still the best "Hulk" movie. The Incredible Hulk (2008 version) was considered a "soft reboot" so they could just get right to the "HULK SMASH!" stuff immediately and do a lot more of it, and to their credit it does a good job with that. Financially, it cost more than the first (around $150 million, although with five years of inflation it was probably about the same) and only brought in about $265 million. So again, adjusting for about five years of inflation, the cost/reward was about Exactly The Same as the first movie. Critically, it was received almost exactly the same, as well, despite being a very different kind of movie. So that's weird. It's weird that a movie made as an "apology/do-over" for the first movie was nonetheless received Exactly The Same Way across the board, albeit for different reasons. This would at least partially explain why there were no more solo Hulk movies, regardless of the sticky distribution rights issue between Disney and Universal. Bottom line, if the movies had made more money, they'd have made more of them, a'la Spider-Man and Disney having to play nice with Sony over him. "Incredible" was supposed to be the "We're Sorry" Hulk movie, with lots of CGI action and comedic bits and when you watch the two back-to-back it really does feel like the second film was made with a checklist of sorts, like "Where the first movie Zigged, we Zag. Then we'll make $400 million." But it didn't work. Critically, both films were slammed for "not being funny enough". Which explains why 1. The MCU Hulk in the Avengers movies was so well-received, and 2. Why only people who read comics have any business getting paid to review comic book movies. The Hulk is not a comedic character. But the first movie was being compared to the first Spider-Man film and "Incredible" was being compared to the first "Iron Man", which while good movies were still pretty thickly-covered in cheese. But critics get it into their head that "That's what ALL these movies are supposed to be, Big Dumb Fun (emphasis on "Dumb")" and so whenever a comic book movie tries to take itself a little more seriously, they point at it and laugh for "missing the point." And I'm over here like "No, YOU missed the point, fckface." Drives me nuts. The Hulk is a tragic character with horror elements, not a generic super-hero. His movies SHOULD be completely different. BUT, money talks and bullsht walks, and that's why we'll never get another Hulk movie anytime soon. Personally, I think both Hulk movies were about as good from very different directions, although I prefer the first one (awful CGI aside, but I can overlook that since the story is good). I do concede that "Incredible" was more of a crowd-pleaser and had a lot more action, but some of the hokey-jokey bits really didn't land, for me, and I prefer the darker, more cerebral approach of the first. It really did try to be something more unique, whereas the second film didn't aim very high and settled for just being "Super-Hero Movie 32-B". As far as fidelity goes, again they're about equally as faithful to the comics from different directions, as they each pull from different runs of the book but adapt them pretty well. The second one is definitely more action-packed, but I like the first movie's cast WAY better and the story puts it over, for me. But I don't hate the second one or anything, it's fine. I actually like it a lot more than most people seem to, but like I said if nothing else the A++ cast of the first has me lean hard towards that one. You ain't replacing Sam Elliot, sorry. And I like Liv Tyler but Connelly was way better, I thought. And of course Bana. I like Norton and I appreciate that he tried to "save" the second film by basically being a huge dick to everyone and trying to rewrite it himself on-set to be less of a cartoon, but it didn't come together in the final cut AND he basically committed career suicide by doing so. It was an earnest attempt, though. He's "fine" I just thought Bana got more out of it. They're both pretty underrated movies.