Ask AdFreak: Why a second Hulk movie? As a nation of disillusioned moviegoers, we've come to expect duplication from Hollywood. (Think A Bug’s Life and Antz, both released in 1998.) But the new Incredible Hulk movie is a real head-scratcher. Every time it comes up in conversation, someone inevitably asks: “What’s up with that? Didn’t they just make that movie?” As a public service, we at AdFreak have decided to get to the bottom of this strange bit of pop-culture déjà vu. Is it a sequel? Is it a remake? Will it suck? We bring you the in-depth Q&A with ourselves after the jump. —Posted by David Griner   Q. Didn’t they just make a Hulk movie?   A. Yes, Ang Lee’s Hulk came out in 2003. That one also had a typically convoluted Hollywood development, starting in 1994 and spanning multiple scripts and directors.   Q. Didn’t people hate Hulk?   A. Kinda. First, there was an infamous Super Bowl trailer that used unfinished footage of the Hulk himself. The result looked pretty cartoony and didn’t bode well for a movie that was supposed to be the next Spider-Man, which had been a $400 million megahit in 2002.   Hulk had a great opening weekend, pulling in $62 million, thanks largely to a huge publicity effort. But then word got around that … well, let’s not split hairs, it stunk. Ticket sales plummeted in subsequent weekends. It ended up making $132 million in North America, which gave it the dubious distinction of being the biggest first-weekend hit that never earned $150 million.   Q. So Hulk was a bomb?   A. Not really. I mean, $132 million domestic and $114 million international isn’t shabby. But it has become a case study of the effects of bad word-of-mouth.   Q. So, if it wasn’t a big hit, why is there a new one coming out?   A. There was probably already a sequel in the works when Hulk premiered. Notably, Marvel had reacquired the movie rights to their character, and they saw the next installment as a chance to be more true to the comic.   That said, this is still the million-dollar question. Especially in light of other questions, like…   Q. Is The Incredible Hulk a remake or a do-over of Hulk?   A. The official answer is no, because the writers didn’t want to bother focusing on the whole origin story again. And while the characters are mostly the same, there’s a new main bad guy.   Q. So, it’s a sequel?   A. No. Or maybe I should say, maybe not. There’s no clear answer. Screenwriter Zak Penn has said that The Incredible Hulk is to Hulk as Aliens is to Alien. Same story line, totally different tone. That might be a fair comparison, if the original Alien hadn’t been awesome and Sigourney Weaver hadn’t been in both flicks.   Q. So, why would anyone want to see The Incredible Hulk?   A. Edward Norton.   Q. Is it going to suck?   A. Well, Norton stars and rewrote the script to his liking, which can’t be a bad thing. But let me say this: Director Louis Leterrier says the movie’s final epic clash between Hulk and The Abomination is going to be 26 minutes long. Your reaction to that fact is probably an indication of whether you’ll like The Incredible Hulk.

March 14, 2008 in Griner | Permalink

Comments

---

It's a reboot, like Batman Begins was. And like the new Star Trek will be. Hulk was horrible. Hulk fans are looking forward to this new one.

Posted by: Ory | Mar 14, 2008 3:45:16 PM

I belive Ed Norton will bring depth to the Banner character, unlike the first movie. Fans are looking more to see the internal struggle of the character, as opposed to seeing the impressiveness of his alter ego. Batman Begins, Superman Returns, and the Spiderman series... they all deal with an internal struggle of the title character that gives them depth beyond the original films. What Norton does with Bruce Banner will ultimately make or break this movie... not the Hulk CGI.

Posted by: ritz | Mar 14, 2008 3:52:55 PM

The real question should be this: Why is an AdFreak blogger asking questions TO HIMSELF?

Perhaps he has a bit of dual Hulk-like personalities too?

Posted by: ChrisM70 | Mar 14, 2008 4:05:14 PM

Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

Posted by: DavidGriner | Mar 14, 2008 4:50:58 PM

I confess. I loved the Hulk movie.

Posted by: David Armano | Mar 14, 2008 11:07:55 PM

It's a good re-branding push by Marvel for continuity and story depth (subtext: stability, trust, mindfulness, intelligence).

One thing the audience is never thrilled with is unexplained change in an established 'mythos,' character-specific or wider spread.
With Marvel gripping the wheel on Iron Man, this, and the other future Avengers tie-in flicks, they're trying to avoid brand confusion and dilution through conflicting styles and unwarranted interpretive flourishes.
Now don't get me wrong, conceptual diversity creates gorgeous new dimensions when it works, but it's near impossible with 40+ years old franchises without complete reconstitution, ala Battlestar Galactica. And the reason that works is because the original had little modern interest (or original depth for that matter) and could be completely re-tooled with equally minor protest.

Marvel's canon, however, has stayed fairly well known for some time, though deep familiarity has been steady falling since the 90's boom. And pretty much any dimensional/thematic approach has probably been tried in the books, which could both aid or injure an adaptation attempt.

That said, they already get points for casting Tim Roth opposite Norton and Samuel L. Jackson in BOTH Incredible Hulk and Iron Man as Nick Fury (the 'Ultimate' version of which was based on Mr. Jackson in the first place). Hell, they even foreshadow Tony Stark's drinking problems in the trailer, swirling a glass in the military caravan and shaking a cocktail when he smirkingly tells his pre-fab robots to "throw some hotrod red" in his trademakr suit.

The films will have final say of course, but
who better to deal with decades of back history & thematic development from dozens of different creative teams than the company who made the stuff work the first time?

Posted by: BillyBoy | Mar 15, 2008 12:05:27 PM

(think A Bug’s Life and Antz, both released in 1998) ... or like Madagascar and The Wild both by the Disney Studios

Posted by: Che Guerilla | Mar 16, 2008 9:44:33 AM

Can I just say, I am thrilled to find a blog that combines my marketing day job with my fangirl comic book after-hours side?

I love your posts about this stuff. Keep 'em coming.

Posted by: D.W. | Mar 16, 2008 2:53:26 PM

@ Che, The Wild was Disney, Madagascar was Dreamworks. Your post implies that Madagascar and the Wild were both Disney which is inaccurate. There is a possibility, however, that Jeffrey Katzenberg had his hand in both, as the first drafts of The Wild reportedly started circling Disney around 1991, while Katzenberg was still head of Disney animation. He went on to co-found Dreamworks in 1994.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 17, 2008 10:50:02 AM

Still, WHY THE HELL ARE THEY MAKING ANOTHER HULK MOVIE? And another hulk game as well. The only difference now " in the game" is that its gonna be on next gen systems. The gameplay looks the same as the previous game. Nothing new but the flashy graphics.

Posted by: Slick | May 16, 2008 10:50:45 PM

So soon? Why?
Ed Norton is an awesome actor, but i don't think i'll be able to deal with the CGI. As with alcohol, moderation is key. I am a big fan of the original Star Wars, but the prequels killed my fantasy world with all the computer graphics. Speed Racer was a hero for me, but the new movie is a bombardment of seizure inducing visuals. Hollywood, please scale back your reliance on this cool, but fake-looking process. I'll take Lou Ferrigno over cartoonish Hulk anyday!

Posted by: Confused Hulk Fan | May 26, 2008 9:42:33 PM

the Hulk sucked, marvel is running out of ideas to make their movies... so their fixing the mistakes they made the first time.. going to see it? hell no. why? cause its the damn damn thing. and will still suck.

Posted by: loogie | May 27, 2008 5:52:02 PM

On the whole Marvel Movie idea...all I know is that they should, and better make an x-men movie where apocalypse is the main bad guy, before the actors who played prof X and Magneto waste away. If the storyline can continue that is, some people say yes, others say no.

Plus, all the fan faves will be there, as well as the variants of chars from the other movies. Most noticeably Arch Angel, a definite fan favorite.

Posted by: AhaloAskewed | May 28, 2008 2:04:06 AM

To be honest I loved Ang Lee's version of the Hulk far beyond Spider Man, Super Man or most of lastest marvel movies that are allways photocopies of each other. I found the Hulk deeper, best shot and with a scent of originality that I do not see very often...
Besides, this new Hulk CGI is far more artificial looking than the previous one.

Posted by: Hue | Oct 27, 2008 8:51:50 AM

Post a comment

Name:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments:

The opinions expressed in comments are those of the individual poster. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Adweek or Nielsen Business Media. Comments of a promotional nature or comments that are otherwise inappropriate may be removed.