What's new

Pre-Order The Incredible Hulk (4k UHD) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,320
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,942
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
I think I may be in the minority, but I enjoyed this one. Ed Norton's on set issues aside, I was bummed he wasn't going to continue in the role in the MCU.
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,923
Real Name
Bryan

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,942
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
Totally understood, though I can make a lot of arguments as to what happened to warrant that ROI. Hulk has never done well as a standalone character in the cinema. He has the most unknown bad guys out of the big MCU characters, he looks funny and this was at the beginning of the comics craze. I like Ruffalo, but I like both Bana and Norton too.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,164
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
If Marvel Studios had the ability to produce a stand-alone Hulk movie without Universal's participation, they'd do one. The 2008 grosses on this are completely irrelevant to where the MCU is today; every sequel they've done to a Phase 1 film has grossed more than its predecessor.

I don't think Norton was let go because the film underperformed; I think Norton was let go because he was allegedly difficult to work with, demanding extensive rewrites while the film was in production, and then was publicly antagonistic to the producers. There's no point in bringing back someone who doesn't want to be there, not when everything else in the MCU now runs like clockwork.

I think Ruffalo has done an outstanding job, and I think the CGI used in Ruffalo's portrayal has been far more convincing than what was used in Norton's version, which makes all the difference for me. I would have been happy to have Norton give it a second go, but if he didn't want to be there (which seems to be the case), I'm glad that they instead have an actor who does. Now that Ruffalo plays him, I can't imagine anyone else in the role.
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,923
Real Name
Bryan
If Marvel Studios had the ability to produce a stand-alone Hulk movie without Universal's participation, they'd do one. The 2008 grosses on this are completely irrelevant to where the MCU is today; every sequel they've done to a Phase 1 film has grossed more than its predecessor.

I don't think Norton was let go because the film underperformed; I think Norton was let go because he was allegedly difficult to work with, demanding extensive rewrites while the film was in production, and then was publicly antagonistic to the producers. There's no point in bringing back someone who doesn't want to be there, not when everything else in the MCU now runs like clockwork.

I think Ruffalo has done an outstanding job, and I think the CGI used in Ruffalo's portrayal has been far more convincing than what was used in Norton's version, which makes all the difference for me. I would have been happy to have Norton give it a second go, but if he didn't want to be there (which seems to be the case), I'm glad that they instead have an actor who does. Now that Ruffalo plays him, I can't imagine anyone else in the role.
Bana was a Better Banner ;)
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,164
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
To be clear, I also think all three actors performed well - but I think Ruffalo's performance was the most effective, in no small part because the CGI had advanced to more realistic levels at the time Ruffalo was playing the rule. The suspension of disbelief is much easier for me in the Ruffalo-fronted movies than the older ones, but I think the actors all performed well.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,232
To be clear, I also think all three actors performed well - but I think Ruffalo's performance was the most effective, in no small part because the CGI had advanced to more realistic levels at the time Ruffalo was playing the rule. The suspension of disbelief is much easier for me in the Ruffalo-fronted movies than the older ones, but I think the actors all performed well.

I'm still not there. No matter how much I see the CG Hulk, I never buy him as a living, organic creature - he still looks artificial to me,

Sure, the "Ragnarok" Hulk easily tops the 2003 version, but I can't accept him as "real"...
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,232
There may be another reason for that ...
The Incredible Hulk
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=incrediblehulk.htm
Domestic Total Gross: $134,806,913
Distributor: Universal Release Date: June 13, 2008
Genre: Action / Adventure Runtime: 1 hrs. 54 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $150 million

While "Incredible Hulk" didn't turn a profit, it did help audiences embrace the character after the disastrous Ang Lee film from 2003.

Yes, I know it has its fan base, but most people really didn't like that film. It left a very sour taste for audiences, so I view the 2008 movie as a success if just because it gave the character a more positive vibe for viewers.

RT's audience score is far from a perfect metric, but "Hulk" is 29% "enjoyed it" and "Incredible" is 71% "enjoyed it"! That radical shift in perception makes me feel like the movie did its job...
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,164
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I'm still not there. No matter how much I see the CG Hulk, I never buy him as a living, organic creature - he still looks artificial to me,

Sure, the "Ragnarok" Hulk easily tops the 2003 version, but I can't accept him as "real"...

I have an easier time with Hulk than I do with Rocket and Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy. They just do not seem to be occupying the same physical space as the rest of the characters whenever I watch that film, which makes it harder for me to accept that they're "real" and should be taken seriously. It shouldn't bother me as much as it does, but they look a bit dodgy to me, total uncanny valley.

While "Incredible Hulk" didn't turn a profit

Between it's worldwide grosses, home video release, PPV rentals, cable sales, and subsequent repackaging within other Marvel DVD/BD sets, I would bet at this point it's broken even at least.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,232
I have an easier time with Hulk than I do with Rocket and Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy. They just do not seem to be occupying the same physical space as the rest of the characters whenever I watch that film, which makes it harder for me to accept that they're "real" and should be taken seriously. It shouldn't bother me as much as it does, but they look a bit dodgy to me, total uncanny valley.

I'm on the other side of that coin, as I find it much easier to accept those characters than Hulk.

Especially Rocket - I nearly totally accept him. Groot is different, as he still looks more like art than an actual organic entity, but since he's not human in origin, I don't mind him too much.

Hulk just doesn't feel vaguely "real" to me!



Between it's worldwide grosses, home video release, PPV rentals, cable sales, and subsequent repackaging within other Marvel DVD/BD sets, I would bet at this point it's broken even at least.

Probably - and even if it hasn't, I think it bought enough goodwill to be worth the investment...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,538
Messages
5,115,401
Members
144,107
Latest member
mikezerby
Recent bookmarks
0
Top