Okay, what's up with this Hulk movie?

Wizard's 200th issue ranked Wolverine as the most popular character since 1991. Hulk is #19 -- right behind Dr. Doom. Hulk is eighth-best among Marvel characters. Ninth if you count Snake Eyes from G.I. Joe!

 

From the EW preview:

 

This may shock you, but:

Comic books existed and were sold before this recent spate of movies. X-Men has been among the top sellers for Marvel for 30 years. The dudes trying to tell you Hulk is "the second-most popular" are just trying to get you to buy Hulk comics.

The "Mount Marvel" quote is because Hulk has a very recognizable name, thanks to the TV show and cartoons. But again, do not make the mistake of equating a recognizable name with huge newsstand sales. There's a reason Marvel milked that X-Men cash cow for every bit of profitability through all those stupid crossovers in the 1990s.

Of course, bigpern, that EW article needed an editor for another reason. Unless the first Hulk film only made 132 bucks?

 

Believe me, I know plenty about comics and I've been in plenty of the shops. As a whole, I would say that X-Men would probably be the bigger franchise, but that's not really fair because they've got characters that tons of people can relate to.

As an individual persona, though, I still think Hulk trumps all but Wolverine and Spiderman in the Marvel world.

I'm not saying I prefer Hulk. As I previously stated, I hated the first film. But I can see why they'd be so gung-ho about this reboot.

 

That's $132 more than it should have made. That thing was horrible.
The only thing even watchable was Jennifer Connelly, who is smoking hot.

 

Obviously, I need the editor. It was $132 million.

Are you serious with that condescending bullshit about comics being around for 30 years? You know Hulk came out a year before X-Men, right (40-some-odd years ago, I might add)? And you know that, if any comic book franchise received a boost from the "recent spate of movies" or through cartoons, it was X-Men, right?

If they're just making up Hulk's popularity, as you seem to be asserting, why wouldn't they have done so with Iron Man, which was critical to Marvel's hopes for a viable studio (and don't underestimate how important that movie was to both the studio and The Incredible Hulk's chances for success)?

Look, believe what you want. I'm sure you know more than the head of production at Marvel Studios.

I don't even care which is the more popular comic over their 45 years of printing. I answered the question of why Marvel decided to make a Hulk reboot so soon after it flopped. Feige's quote and Batman's link both back up the assertion that the Hulk is one of the most popular characters in the history of Marvel.

What have you brought to the table besides your lame condescension and gut instincts about which comic is more popular?

 

Curses to you Demo.
I enjoyed the first Hulk movie and cannot be convinced otherwise for being vastly underrated.
My friends at the AV Club agree and they also like this Hulk as well.
http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/the_incredible_hulk
B-

And quick survey, do I make the midnight showing or not?

 

OK, if the argument continues, we're bringing in this guy to settle it.

 

Hulk started in 1962.
The X-Men started in 1963.

 

Why is this an argument?

Seriously, we are talking about two different things here. One is how recognizable a character is among people who don't read comics. Another is popularity among people who actually read the books or watch the movies and cartoons.

The Hulk is a more familiar face than any Marvel character other than Spider-Man among people who don't read comics. I think that is what Feige was talking about.

But in terms of readership of books or desire to see movies and cartoons? The character has been well behind Wolverine as an individual and the X-Men team books for a long time. The gap has closed in the last couple of years because Marvel gave the character a big push with two "events," Planet Hulk and World War Hulk (the end of which sucked, by the way).

That is why they made an X-Men movie long before they made a Hulk movie. That is why they have had two X-Men cartoon series in the last 18 years or so with a third on the way for 2009.

Edit: The characters started about the same time, but the Hulk was definitely more popular in the '60s, '70s and early '80s. In fact, Wolverine was introduced in the Hulk's book, probably to give the character a boost before he showed up as part of a re-launch of the X-Men.

 

Saw it last night.

Go see Iron Man twice before you spend money on TIH.

Don't get me wrong, the movie's pretty good for with it is; but what it is is b-level material every way you measure. Cast: Norton's not a superhero and Liv's not a damsel in distress; the script has no laughs and the FX are from Rhythm&Hues, not ILM -- the studio got what it paid for. The director's biggest hit was Transporter 2, and it shows.

But it was very very loud. But the highlight is the appearance of Tony Stark, and the second biggest roar came when Lou F showed up on screen.

Like Indy, it ain't no Iron Man. And none are, from what I've heard from people who have seen it, The Dark Knight.

 

Does the last line mean you've heard good or bad things about TDK?