#1 Edited by TheHulk (778 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk wanted to talk about something that Hulk really hope isn't true. Was Hulk's movie from 2008 a bomb? It did pass its budget, but it didn't earn as much as things like Iron Man and Thor. But, does that really make it a bomb? Hulk sure hope not. Do you consider it a bomb or did it just simply not earn as much but was still a decent success?

#2 Edited by Joygirl (18887 posts) - - Show Bio

It was a decent success and also a pretty good film. Now, the first movie, with Eric Bana, flopped on a hilarious level and is universally despised alongside films like Catwoman and Daredevil.

Online
#4 Posted by Joygirl (18887 posts) - - Show Bio

The 2008 film, no I don't.

Online
#5 Edited by TheHulk (778 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

It was a decent success and also a pretty good film. Now, the first movie, with Eric Bana, flopped on a hilarious level and is universally despised alongside films like Catwoman and Daredevil.

Thank goodness. Hulk was worried that was the reason that they don't want to make movie starring yours truly for a while.

#6 Edited by comicace3 (3469 posts) - - Show Bio

No bomb here hulk. Calm down...

#7 Posted by TheHulk (778 posts) - - Show Bio

No bomb here hulk. Calm down...

Good.
Hulk was just trying to find out why they want to wait for another movie starring Hulk and Hulk thought it was because it didn't make enough money.

#8 Edited by comicace3 (3469 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulk: Nah I don't think that's the reason. Beats me why they wouldn't make a new one.

#9 Posted by TheHulk (778 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulk: Nah I don't think that's the reason. Beats me why they wouldn't make a new one.

Yeah. If Hulk were in charge, Hulk would cancel Guardians of the Galaxy movie and work on greatest Hulk movie ever starring Mark Ruffalo.

#10 Posted by comicace3 (3469 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulk: I dunno.. Gaurdians of the galaxy is pretty cool... but lets just hope.. that the greatest hulk movie does come out.

#11 Posted by AweSam (7373 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

It was a decent success and also a pretty good film. Now, the first movie, with Eric Bana, flopped on a hilarious level and is universally despised alongside films like Catwoman and Daredevil.

The one with Eric Bana was better than the other one in my opinion. It made just about as much and was pretty much equally well received as the other. It's not "universally despised", it's just your opinion. I agree on Catwoman, but Daredevil made double than its budget and it's as good as Daredevil will ever get.

#12 Posted by Joygirl (18887 posts) - - Show Bio

That's odd. I've only ever heard people say it sucked.

Online
#13 Posted by dtm1980 (240 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd like to clear something up here please without trying to offend anybody, if I may. Relating to successful films and bombs!

It is not up to the audience to class a film as a failure. It's not even up to the magazines or the box office as many classic films through history were cemented in domestic sales as opposed to in cinemas. They called Shawshank Redemption a critical failure when it bombed at the cinema because apparently the Box Office dictates success even though more people buy dvds than they do attend the cinema (after all, why pay £10 on a ticket when you can buy a dvd and unlimited play for the same price?).

Dredd was also a "failure" even though it delivered to the majority of actual Dredd fans. Just not Stallone Dredd fans... But what happens to those films is that they are labelled Cult Classics which some movie producers still sniff at. I dont see why. Cult Classics stand the test of time and that signifies true success. Firefly series boxset. Fox screws over the best show they ever had and still gets a ton of cash in the bank over dvd sales ever since... to the point where they send out a shitload of cease and desist orders over the making and selling of Jayne style hats (that they didn't design).

2008 Incredible Hulk was just an awesome film that gave fans of Marvel and movies both all they could really expect from such a film. The Ang Lee Hulk was just vague and sometimes daft but the actors gave it their best and I can still ejnoy that film and it still gets television time.

A true bomb comes in the form of a Steven Seagal film or when Sean Penn goes "full-retard!" just to keep hacking away at the Oscar Nominations!

#14 Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5528 posts) - - Show Bio

no, the 2003 hulk was a bomb. i fall asleep everytime i see it. 2008 hulk may not have been as good as iron man but its still was good

#15 Edited by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

That's odd. I've only ever heard people say it sucked.

Daredevil didn't suck. There you go. You've heard a different opinion.

#16 Posted by Dabee (2380 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought it was the bomb. I really loved it. Edward Norton did a really great job as Bruce Banner, as did Mark Ruffalo in The Avengers.

#17 Posted by ThatGuyWithHeadPhones (10455 posts) - - Show Bio

What was so bad about daredevil honestly I don't see why this movie get any hate

#18 Posted by TheHulk (778 posts) - - Show Bio

@dtm1980 said:

I'd like to clear something up here please without trying to offend anybody, if I may. Relating to successful films and bombs!

It is not up to the audience to class a film as a failure. It's not even up to the magazines or the box office as many classic films through history were cemented in domestic sales as opposed to in cinemas. They called Shawshank Redemption a critical failure when it bombed at the cinema because apparently the Box Office dictates success even though more people buy dvds than they do attend the cinema (after all, why pay £10 on a ticket when you can buy a dvd and unlimited play for the same price?).

Dredd was also a "failure" even though it delivered to the majority of actual Dredd fans. Just not Stallone Dredd fans... But what happens to those films is that they are labelled Cult Classics which some movie producers still sniff at. I dont see why. Cult Classics stand the test of time and that signifies true success. Firefly series boxset. Fox screws over the best show they ever had and still gets a ton of cash in the bank over dvd sales ever since... to the point where they send out a shitload of cease and desist orders over the making and selling of Jayne style hats (that they didn't design).

2008 Incredible Hulk was just an awesome film that gave fans of Marvel and movies both all they could really expect from such a film. The Ang Lee Hulk was just vague and sometimes daft but the actors gave it their best and I can still ejnoy that film and it still gets television time.

A true bomb comes in the form of a Steven Seagal film or when Sean Penn goes "full-retard!" just to keep hacking away at the Oscar Nominations!

Wow. Hulk always thought box office results determine whether a film is successful in its theatrical run.

#19 Posted by Dernman (14790 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked the 2008 Hulk movie although I didn't think Norton looked the part. I did not like the first film at all though. It was bad IMO.

#20 Posted by Superguy0009e (2265 posts) - - Show Bio

I really liked Hulk. I was young when the first one came out, so I didn't really care how good or bad it was as long as it had action in it. I saw the new one for my birthday with some friends, and I have to say, it was far better story and action wise. It relied heavily on the Return of the Monster storyline, which was the one I read the most and thought was really good.

Overall, maybe not respected as much by the average film goer, but still a ton of fun.

#21 Posted by Shavo (2061 posts) - - Show Bio

2008 hulk was good i think the movie your thinking about is the 2003 hulk now that was a bomb

#22 Edited by ArturoCalaKayVee (11169 posts) - - Show Bio

I really liked the 2008 Hulk movie and I really want a sequel.

#23 Edited by Uncanny_Doom (361 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, it was a solid reboot that had to cleanse itself of what many considered one of the worst comic/superhero films ever. It had decent critical acclaim too.

I thought it was alright. The action was there, but some of the acting was really shoddy. I didn't think Edward Norton and Liv Tyler had any chemistry at all, and the scenes they shared together felt very dry.

#24 Edited by Ninjablade09 (3105 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought it was really good. Was very different from the rest of the MCU. I really liked the way Hulk looked, that's how I picture Hulk. I wish they would just make the sequel. The thing is with a Hulk movie is that the director/writers/producers and all that stuff think Banner is more important and want the movie to be more about him. I would like if in Avengers 2 Hulk and Banner separate. Make a Planet Hulk movie. Wish Lou Ferrigno voiced Hulk in Avengers.

#25 Posted by RisingBean (3607 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl: I liked Daredevil, and I enjoy the 03' Hulk for what it is. @awesam: Rumor on the street is DD reboot.

#26 Posted by AweSam (7373 posts) - - Show Bio

@risingbean: Doesn't mean it's going to be any better. Aside from the terrible fight scene between Elektra and Daredevil, it was an alright movie. That's saying a lot since I hate the character.

#27 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

It was a decent success and also a pretty good film. Now, the first movie, with Eric Bana, flopped on a hilarious level and is universally despised alongside films like Catwoman and Daredevil.

I loved Daredevil. >.>

#28 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam: You hate Daredevil, or Elektra?

#29 Posted by AweSam (7373 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

@awesam: You hate Daredevil, or Elektra?

Daredevil. His origin is lame and unoriginal. His superpower, by all mean, should make him less capable than an average person, and his costume is just... really bad. I don't blame him though, he is blind. He's actually more of a bat than anything. DC should've let Marvel name him Batman just to make the character less lame.

#30 Edited by dtm1980 (240 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulk: Lol but doesn't Hulk think it's unfair that if a film only gets a small theatrical run that its future should be ruined by box office statistics, even if the critics are hopeful?

#31 Edited by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulkThe movie was a critical success and is well beloved by Hulk fans. In my opinion it was the best outside of Captain America and Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe(Thor in comparison is kinda blah, Iron Man is extremely close though).

Reason why it didn't get a sequel wasn't because of success or money making because in both departments it would definitely have gotten a sequel. The reason is that Marvel didn't want to make a sequel as they wanted to do other characters like Thor and Captain America.

In fact discussions for a new Hulk movie are already in progress. Ruffalo has signed on for 6 movies and this means that they already anticipated 3 Hulk sequels. Leader has been set up and is prepped for Incredible Hulk 2. Heck, Whedon said that after Avengers 2, he might get a movie and it was left hinted(at least from what I got anyway) that it would be closer to happening than not happening.

To further this idea most people state that the key to The Avengers was the Hulk and most walked away saying he was the thing that made them love the movie.

#32 Posted by JamesKM716 (1992 posts) - - Show Bio

@thehulk: It is because it didn't make enough money.

It made somewhat over 200 million. It's budget was around there too. While it surpassed it's budget, with marketing costs and such it simply didn't gross nearly enough to spawn a sequel.

(Cap spawned almost three times it's budget. Thor I think twice as much, Iron Man far more. Hulk narrowly surpassed it's budget).

This coupled with the 2003 movie's low gross made Marvel lose faith in Hulk.

Ruffalo's performance made Marvel rethink their position on Hulk. So there is a fairly good chance that a Hulk sequel will come out in Phase 3

#33 Edited by JediXMan (29702 posts) - - Show Bio

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

#34 Posted by Havenless (1323 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@xanni15 said:

@awesam: You hate Daredevil, or Elektra?

Daredevil. His origin is lame and unoriginal. His superpower, by all mean, should make him less capable than an average person, and his costume is just... really bad. I don't blame him though, he is blind. He's actually more of a bat than anything. DC should've let Marvel name him Batman just to make the character less lame.

I think you don't quite grasp his super power, then. I feel he's much too powerful than he should be, and that makes him lame. He can hear hearts beating through walls, he can sense muscle fibers tightening when an opponent is about to swing at him, and he can taste amounts of carbon dioxide in the air, giving him a rough calculation of how many people are in the room.

If he was just blind with some minor sense increases like Wolverine and he relied heavily on his martial arts, he would be epic. But as he stands now, he's a little too Mary Sue for me.

#35 Posted by ssejllenrad (12847 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

It was a decent success and also a pretty good film. Now, the first movie, with Eric Bana, flopped on a hilarious level and is universally despised alongside films like Catwoman and Daredevil.

Despised? Yes. Flopped? Nu-uh. It generated around 250 Million from a 130 Million budget. It wasn't a flop. A break-even is a more fitting term.

#36 Posted by Moonchilde (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes it was a bomb. It had a budget of roughly 150 million, but only made 130 million at the box office. It added an extra 100 million in foreign box office, but that isn't enough to be considered a success by Hollywood standards, especially considering that 150 million production budget doesn't factor in advertising budget.

In fact, both Hulk movies made roughly the same amount of money, and if you adjust for inflation, the original one actually did *slightly* better.

It's lack of success is likely why there is no Hulk film planned for Marvel phase 2. The general positive buzz about Hulk's portrayal in the Avengers, however, means that there will be a Hulk film in phase 3.

2003 Hulk - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hulk.htm

2008 Hulk - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=incrediblehulk.htm

#37 Edited by Temporal_Guardian (317 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk seems to have a problem selling well when he has to stand on his own At least post Ferringo era. He is an excellent secondary character, but so far getting more than underwhelming success is difficult for him. I mean, the ultimate spiderman game outsold Hulk: UD even though I think Hulk's game got better reviews.

#38 Posted by Extremis (3344 posts) - - Show Bio

Well if you have to ask then yes.

There is hope though, Mark Ruffalo owns the character so any possible future film looks promising.