Remember when last month’s new (and perfectly ok) Hulk movie was the great, green hope? Had The Fans bonering over its return to “core Hulk values” as opposed to the hilariously detested (and deeply flawed but interesting, dammit…) Ang Lee version? That it was the next step after Iron Man for Marvel pop cultural global world dominance and the sign that everyone couldn’t wait for an Avengers movie?

Hey, turns out no one really cared again.

“We’re happy with the financial results, even if they (only) reach the first film’s levels,” a Marvel insider insisted. “Having a sequel is not the definition of success.”

That’s fortunate, as even outpacing the first film’s worldwide haul by 10% looks optimistic at this point, and that’s not likely to stoke enthusiasm for a franchise follow-up anytime soon.

After four weekends, the Louis Leterrier-directed “The Incredible Hulk” has earned $125 million, the same as what “Hulk” had pulled in at the same time in its run. “Hulk” finished with $132 million, and its successor is unlikely to do much better.

Its foreign rollout is still in progress, with comics-friendly Japan among the territories the remake has yet to bow, but it appears likely that the Edward Norton starrer will struggle to reach $130 million internationally. The first film tallied $113.2 million overseas.

Not really sure what this proves or shows, though. Maybe the Hulk just isn’t meant for box office success? Although my favorite part of the article is easily this analysis:

“So the new one overdelivered, relative to its underpromise.”



What the shit does that mean? Is that even English for chrissakes? That’s the f*&king dumbest load of transparent ass crap I’ve ever read. It doesn’t even mean anything!

And what does it mean that both FF movies, two of the worst films ever made, out-grossed or matched a legitimately decent big summer movie?

General, Movie/TV, In The Theaters