This is topic Anyone else sick of the Hulk yet? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002150

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 06-14-2003, 11:03 AM:
 
I cannot believe how much advertising and marketing this movie is getting. The commericals are all over the TV and radio. Also has anyone else been to a place that they sell toys recently? The Hulk junk is everywhere. It is like Godzilla all over again. I half expect to see a commercial where a chihuahua start hunting down the Hulk. It is almost to the point where I am going to take some pleasure if the movie does become a Godzilla and bombs.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 06-14-2003, 11:13 AM:
 
I agree, this has gone beyond the point of absurdity. I can't wipe my ass without finding five new Incredible Hulk cereals, a dozen Hulk toys, etc.

After the first Austin Powers movie came out and every college age male within my earshot was yelling "Yeah, baby! Yeah!", I came up with a useful promotional item for the movie, that I think would work well for the Hulk, too. May I present "The Incredible Hulk Reverse-Firing Shotgun!" The basic premise? Very simple. Buy it because it says "The Hulk" and it's a terrible shade of green. Aim it at something. Pull the trigger. It will shoot you in the face.

The debatable upside to this whole Hulk craze: 20 to 1, they will start selling the old Ghostbusters "Ecto-Cooler", renamed "Hulk Juice" or something equally as revolting.

Me smash advertising.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2003, 11:30 AM:
 
Mark my words, The Hulk will be godawful.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-14-2003, 01:16 PM:
 
I am very curious. How can you dislike a movie before it is released? Most of you work in the motion picture exhibition industry either as theatre owners,vendors or employees and I would think you would be happy if the studio promoted products that your livelhood depends on such as a major release as the "HULK". I know the studio will take a big chunk of the box office receipts during the first weeks of the film's run but the profits from the concession sales will be all yours. I think it will be an all win situation when the studio's hyped up promotion will bring a lot of people to your theatre. Just my opinion

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-14-2003, 01:20 PM:
 

quote:

---

"Ecto-Cooler", renamed "Hulk Juice" or something equally as revolting.

---

Hey! Hi-C Ecto Cooler was one of my favorate flavors back in grade school! I'd love them to bring that back!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-14-2003, 01:30 PM:
 
Claude,

Let's say that millions of people storm the theatres, expecting that with all the hype that this must be the best movie ever (and believe me, I know lots of people who believe hype MUST mean great, otherwise, why hype?). They leave the theatre with frozen "shocked" looks on their faces. They will feel burned and it will take them a bit longer to return to the theatre the next time one of these "hyped" films make the rounds. Also, the very quick drop-off at the boxoffice after opening weekend guarantees the theatre won't make much off ticket sales (as their slice of the percentage only benefits the studios in the first few weeks. In the long run, this will damage the theatre industry. So theatres in the LONG RUN have a vested interest in showing movies that there customers not only want to see opening weekend, but will also create good word of mouth that will help sustain a longer run.

Theatres would actually love to make money off concessions AND the box-office. Current release strategies rarely allow this to happen. Titanic was a rare example of a blockbuster staying at the top of the charts for months, allowing theatres to actually make big money off ticket sales alone (not to mention concessions).
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-14-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Paul,

I understand your point and I do agree with what you say. There is no question that the people in the motion picture production industry are greedy bastards but if they keep producing over hyped pictures, they will also eventually feel the wrath of movie goers. Take George Lucas, for example. He would have been much better off if he never bothered to continue the "STAR WARS"saga with three new prequel episodes that disapointed many of his fans. His original "Star Wars" films has been winning tons of awards including several oscars but Episodes one and two I think has only won one. None of them for sound or sound editing. Not only has he lost a lot of credibility with his fans but I doubt the exhibition industry will take his 'No Digital-No Episode III for you' demand seriously as they should. I am willing to predict that Episode III will play mostly on film in theatres like Episode II did.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 06-14-2003, 03:37 PM:
 
Claude, exactly right I do work for the theater business and I do understand that promotions brings people into the theater. That being said, if I am sick of the Green Hype, then you can bet there are average Joe customers who are also going to be sick of all this. Another point is if this does turn out to be a huge bomb, then it does serve the studio right because they obviously didn't learn their lesson from other hyped movies like Godzilla. Hopefully some day they will learn to make quality movies rather than by the numbers mindless action movies and hype the hell out of them.

The sad thing is if this movie does bomb, you know that they are not going to blame themselves. Instead they are going to blame the audience and come to the wrong conclusion that people are just tired of comic book movies. Now all that aside, I really do hope that the movie turns out to be good. My expections are so low that it just has to be moderately decent and I will be happy. Though I never really got into the comic book, I was a huge fan of the TV show.
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-14-2003, 03:39 PM:
 
I suppose more publicity is better than little publicity. Remember 'Rollerball' last summer.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-14-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
The marketing overload on "Hulk" is just a signal of how desperate things are over at Universal. The company has been losing lots of money ever since Steven Spielberg left and formed Dreamworks. Vivendi wants to unload the studio.

Seeing how "Spiderman" raked in a ton of cash for Sony, Universal is hoping for the same thing. The trouble is "Spiderman" banked on convenient timing. There wasn't shit worth seeing in theaters when "Spiderman" was released on 5-2-2002. It was a wasteland at the box office. "Spiderman" was a mediocre movie, but the only one out at the time anyone wanted to watch.

"Hulk" will have to be a much better film than "Spiderman" to even earn 1/3 of the Spidey gross. Why? June 20 is in the middle of the summer movie season where one over-hyped release after another debuts. And there's actually some good movies to watch too, such as "Finding Nemo" (a female coworker of mine called it the best animated movie she had ever seen, even claiming it was better than "The Lion King").

I hope "Hulk" is a good film. But I'm not going to set my hopes too high about it. It sure isn't going to gross $400 million in the US. One thing is certain, Universal is wasting a lot of money over-hyping the title and raising audience expectations too high.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-14-2003, 07:35 PM:
 
Usually it seems like they put the best scenes in the trailers. If that's the case here, this movie will suck much...everything
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-15-2003, 01:32 PM:
 
X2 and The Matrix Reloaded were just as overhyped. When I saw the 50 percent second-weekend drop for The Matrix Reloaded -- on a holiday weekend! -- I decided not to see it.

Bobby: Universal had a very quiet 2003 until Bruce Almighty and 2 Fast 2 Furious Also, Vivendi is trying to unload the studio because of Vivendi's own money problems.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-15-2003, 02:31 PM:
 
While Claude is right in that you should not judge a movie before you have seen it, some projects make so little sense that you can say it is extremely unlikely that it will be a good movie.
Of course, in some rare cases we are surprised by a movie which is far better than our expectations (e.g. The Mummy). But in this case it is so obvious that they just made this movie because they didn`t know what else to do. Because other cartoon hero movies did well at the box office, they hope this will too. That is entirely legitimate, and for our business I too hope that it will attract a big audience. But it is just not very likely that it will be an interesting movie to watch.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-15-2003, 05:11 PM:
 
I agree with Paul. Over-hyping "standard product" will damage the industry.
Way too much money is spent on film marketing, and on many a production the money spent simply does not show up on the screen!

Look at old films like GONE WITH THE WIND or BEN HUR, or let`s say a Joel Silver production from the 1990s - the money is on the screen.

Then look at SPIDERMAN - it has the look of a nice little high school comedy, the usual CGI stuff (which looks more like a video game than a visual effect) and so-so actors (except Dafoe). There is no reason for that kind of mega budget!

Why should we care about whether film production is inefficient?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THIS!

The studios will have to spend MUCH MORE money to sell these overpriced productions. And they will take bigger and bigger shares out of the cake. What a perverse situation that exhibitors cannot make a living from simply showing films any more, especially at current ticket prices!

When someone spends 120 million bucks on a film that doesn`t deliver, it bothers me. The marketing hype will keep smaller and maybe better films out of theatres, the exhibitors are often stuck with bad deals, and like the casino, studios can never lose because they have TV and DVD as a profitable outlet for even the worst stuff.

To sum it up, surely every film has to be judged fairly, but there is a real danger in agressive marketing of (too often) mediocre films.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 06-15-2003, 07:06 PM:
 
I remember when Congo was hyped up as well. Every cup and bag had the Congo logo. Congo was a bigger flop than Godzilla IMO.

I agree with most of the people here over hyping and marketing movie is a bad idea. Good thing this crap only happens every few years.
 

---

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 06-16-2003, 02:27 AM:
 
Claude wrote

quote:

---

I am very curious. How can you dislike a movie before it is released?

---

All things are possible with Divx and a fast connection

cheers Peter
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-16-2003, 09:54 AM:
 
The trailer for the Hulk, looks bad. It is edited great, sound is good, but when Hulk swings a tank around his head I think, "its only on for a split second and it looks shit, doesnt make me wanna see the whole thing." I am in a phase of loathing CGI, it always looks bad. I also dislike it when people say, "well its only a blockbuster, dont expect a great story or charachters." Why the hell not. You think for over 90million dollars someone should be able to write something even half decent, alas They dont.
"Good Films cost less than $50million bad films cost more." Chew over that philosophy.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-16-2003, 05:42 PM:
 
One of the horribly bad things about CGI is few effects companies seem to be using any logical discipline with the tool in making things look real. Of course, some of this is definitely coming from the "crank it out fast and just good enough to get by" horse-shit which often comes from delivering the lowest bid.

Outside of the incredible work done by Pixar, very few films using CGI these days approach the pioneering efforts made by previous films that had far fewer tools and much more primitive computing hardware. Let's face it, the average bottom of the barrel desktop PC on a store shelf has more computing muscle in it than the SGI Iris Indigo Elan models used to create effects in "T2" or "Jurassic Park". This is why I simply have to slam the human element involved for just plain half-assing the work.

Even a simple thing such as a size/scale/movement formula, commonly used for miniature work, seems strangely absent in much of today's CGI. Sure, the Hulk swings a tank around by its cannon barrel but the whole sight gag looks like it lacks substance and weight. Part of the problem is the visual is sped up way too fast to be believable. The result winds up cartoony looking.

One of the things that made the CGI work in "Jurassic Park" so great is many of the folks doing the animation were coming from ANALOG stop-motion fields of work. Those guys knew a lot more about weight, balance, motion, feel and all those other very important items that make animation believable. It seems these days that a bunch of the 3D animation schools and such teach none of this and only give overviews of computer software instead. This is also the same complaint I have about graphics art courses in general. They only seem to teach bullshit about software and nothing involving principals in design. IMHO, this is one reason why America's overall graphic design output SUCKS compared to other industrialized nations like Germany, France or Sweden.

To make the long point short, it is high time for effects studios to make their animators learn ANIMATION and not just the newest shit about shaders and other software. The "analog" animators seem to know what it is about.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2003, 06:17 PM:
 
Well, here's a surprise -- Ebert & Roeper give "The Hulk" two thumbs up!

They both praised Ang Lee's direction, and they liked the film's look and the storyline. Ebert said the film has "dark elegance." He also praised Jennifer Conolly's acting.

They said the movie really isn't a special-effects movie and has more talk than the usual superhero extravaganza. They called this a plus.

The only thing they criticized was the CG effects, saying when the hulk is bouncing around, etc. he looks like a video game, which I'd have to agree with, going by the trailer.

They talk about the film here:
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-17-2003, 07:32 PM:
 
It's all in the projection, kids.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-17-2003, 08:02 PM:
 
Then I dare you to project Dumb and Dumberer. I dare you!
 

---

Posted by Kristin Wahlund (Member # 922) on 06-17-2003, 10:48 PM:
 
Does all this hype remind anyone of "Tomb Raider"? and dont you think the hulk is just trying to play off the successs of spiderman? Didnt they learn anything from daredevil?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-17-2003, 11:01 PM:
 
Well, actually, I DON'T remember TOMB RAIDER ( and I THINK that's a GOOD thing!

I have to admit,though, I may go see Hulk now that some reviewers have liked it (Village Voice, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Ebert & Roeper).

But, I have to agree with Bobby Henderson here that CG has gotten out of hand, and I believe schools aren't teaching a basis in design first, but just jumping to the controls (programs are just TOOLS, they dont MAKE anything, the creativity of the individual does, they shouldnt be a MAYA artist, they should be an artist who just happens to be using MAYA at the moment).
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-18-2003, 07:11 AM:
 
Bobby Hit the nail on the head.

quote:

---

One of the horribly bad things about CGI is few effects companies seem to be using any logical discipline with the tool in making things look real.

---

CG is very bad nowadays,
-Lord of the rings has some good some bad,
-Star Wars Ep2 some good some bad,
-Matrix reloaded some good most bad
-Spiderman all bad, no creative thought whatsoever went into those effects. Spiderman looked like a peice of rubber. It really ruins the film, any film. I know we all have to suspend disbelief, but how far.

T2 and Jurassic park, even Independence day have very credible, believable effects. Their computers were mice compared to the monsters now. At least Pixar are still capeable of visual splendor.

So computer graphics work has become more of a process than an artform, where have i heard that before?
 

---

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 06-18-2003, 08:56 AM:
 
I really didn't ever have a problem with CGI until I watched The mummy returns when the rock came out as part man part scorpian. That ended the movie for me as it looked completely fake. I would settle for stop motion anyday as compared to this.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-18-2003, 08:55 PM:
 
Doesn't it all really come down to a decision on where to place your advertising dollars? You can spend a ton on picture "A", but at the expense of "B" and "C" and so on. Bad marketing decisions lead to big losses, and impact budgets for future pictures, since there is only so much money to go around. If you think you have a turkey, why overspend to promote it? You can't make chicken salad out of chicken

Since we are opening with three prints, I hope to hell we don't have a green turkey on our hands!
 

---

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 06-18-2003, 11:12 PM:
 
My dad told me that he would not see this movie because for the simple reason that he kept getting bombarded with ads on the TV all the time. He doesn't care how good it is, just because every station he watched, there was that damn Hulk again. We both got frustrated with it during the NBA playoffs and just about every commercial break there was, the trailer came on. After a while, we changed the station to something else for about 2 minutes because we couldn't stand it anymore. Unfortunatly for me, I have to screen it so I can't aviod it . Here's to overhyping and having the trailer shoved down my throat.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-19-2003, 08:13 AM:
 
Hulk commercials? Bah...that's nothing. Where were you when "Billy Jack" was four-walling it, city to city. Man, talk about commercial overload!
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-20-2003, 05:42 AM:
 
It'll be interesting to see how the comments go after this evening.

We screened our print this morning (Thursday), and for once, the trailer didn't blow the whole movie.

As has been mentioned, the CGI isn't all that great when Hulk is in the distance. In the desert, he looks more like a green flea, sproinging here and there. Close-up though, it's better.

I'm not much of a comics fan, but I managed to sit through the 2 1/2 hours without any problem. The soundtrack had some decent effects in it, too... at least the DTS mix sounded pretty good.

So.... ok... it was better than I was expecting. Friday night at the boxoffice should be interesting.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-20-2003, 05:58 AM:
 
I'm glad I don't watch televsion. I've only seen the trailer (at most) twice and only hear the odd Dodge Caravan / Hulk radio ad.

But since it was brought up, I'm sick of the Hulk since it has DTS issues and I'm really sick of DTS issues.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-22-2003, 11:38 AM:
 
All that hype hurt The Hulk -- it opened to an estimated $62.64M per Mojo.

OTOH Reading/City Cinemas is hurting itself by its ban on Universal and Fox product. I drove past the Reading location in Manville on my way home last night and the lot was only half-full for the 7-8 round.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-22-2003, 03:07 PM:
 

quote:

---

All that hype hurt The Hulk -- it opened to an estimated $62.64M per Mojo.

---

quote:

---

All that hype hurt The Hulk -- it opened to an estimated $62.64M per Mojo.

---

What is the industry getting itself into when this kind of opening is seen negatively?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-22-2003, 03:23 PM:
 
Remember, the movie wasn't free. Also remember that ridiculous advertising campaign wasn't free either. Anyone know how much they sank into the movie and the advertising to put out this lackluster film?

This film did some business Friday, then started to really tank by Saturday...the NEXT DAY.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-22-2003, 03:38 PM:
 
It tanked on us, too. The last three shows yesterday were
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-22-2003, 03:54 PM:
 
I didn't know whether to post this here or over in feature info but anyway I have a really anal question.

What is the official title of this movie?

Is it 'Hulk' or 'The Hulk'. Or does nobody apart from me really care?

IMDB lists it as 'The Hulk' yet all the posters seem to have 'Hulk'.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-22-2003, 04:00 PM:
 

quote:

---

Also remember that ridiculous advertising campaign wasn't free either.

---

Good point. I guess I've gotten to the place where I just drown out advertising hype anymore (apparently a segment of the public the public is as well). I somehow am able to go brain dead during previews now and fast forward through commercials on TV (wont watch anything live anymore).

Oh, well. Off to NEXT week's blockbuster!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-22-2003, 06:43 PM:
 
Yeah, Paul. And another waste of perfectly good 35mm stock....

I saw a comic strip in the "Daily Rag".....the last panel said something to the effect that the preview showed all the good scenes.

That has been my assessment many times in today's crap that comes out of the butts of Hollywood. I have said many times that "if you saw the preview, you saw the whole movie" and it isn't worth spending money on to watch either on the Big Screen or at home on DVD.

I mentioned some time ago that if something catches my eye in a movie that I like, I might wait for it to come out on DVD or maybe I'll institute a special "Equipment Test Run" to make sure my projectors and sound systems are up to snuff. However, I have not done that in at least a year now.... That should say something....
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2003, 09:17 PM:
 
Michael - if you look at the credit block on the one-sheets it says "The Hulk."

And it's that way on our marquee too, so that MUST be the official title! (I'm anal about putting the whole title on.)
 

---

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 06-22-2003, 09:46 PM:
 
I plan on shelling out 7.50 to see this later this week. Does this make me a bad person?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2003, 10:26 PM:
 
This is from Boxoffice Guru.

The Hulk delivered the fifth best opening of the year and the third best for the Marvel family of comic book films trailing Spider-Man's $114.8M and X2: X-Men United's $85.9M. Those two blockbusters, however, opened on the first weekend of May when the marketplace offered no competition and tentpole pics could dominate more screens in every theater. The Hulk went out with an estimated 6,000 prints while Spider-Man and X2 had 7,500 and 8,000 prints, respectively. On a per-print basis, The Hulk's bow was almost identical to X2's.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-23-2003, 12:27 AM:
 

quote:

---

I plan on shelling out 7.50 to see this later this week. Does this make me a bad person?

---

If it weren't for your Brenkerts the answer would be yes!

Actually, I'm still doing well with it here. Better than any of the other pieces of we've got. Too bad my platters never throw prints. If they did I could open the booth door as they go flying.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-23-2003, 07:16 AM:
 
Mojo estimates that The Hulk cost $137M to produce plus another $35M for prints and advertising.

The way tentpoles open big and burn out big, The Hulk will need overseas B.O. to break even.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Stuckey (Member # 1718) on 06-23-2003, 11:17 AM:
 
I wonder if the Harry Potter book hurt HULK this weekend? I figure that lots of kids were in line on Friday night to get the book, then spent most of the weekend reading it.

Plus, this was really the ONLY weekend that HULK had to prove itself. FULL THROTTLE will stomp it into the ground next weekend. Then LB2 and T3 come to finish the job.

Bad timing I would think. Certainly the marketing campaign isn't to blame (I've seen it EVERYWHERE).
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-23-2003, 01:45 PM:
 
At least it's printed on Kodak Vision Premiere 2393 Stock!

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

:john:
=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-23-2003, 06:23 PM:
 
Michael
If you're talking abut the movie it's THE Hulk if you are the Hulk you just say "me Hulk"

I wonder if the advertising worked against it. The trailers looked so bad, I decided not to go based on that. The CGI looked really really bad.

Yes Sam, you are bad
Bad Sam, Bad!
 

---

Posted by Stephen Brown (Member # 292) on 06-25-2003, 07:51 AM:
 
I saw the trailer for the Hulk, and thought I was watching Shrek 2.....Shrek=Hulk.........Have you seen the two in the same movie together......

regards
Steve Brown
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-25-2003, 03:01 PM:
 
Saw the Hulk last night at a Brandon Theatre complex in Concord CA. The movie wasn't that great nor was the complex. The story wasn't there and the acting was wooden. I did like the comic book editing and I did like the CG.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-29-2003, 11:54 AM:
 
We might be seeing this year's Battlefield Earth. Mojo just posted 2nd weekend estimates and The Hulk took in an estimated $18.425M -- a 70 percent drop!

I thought about seeing The Hulk on the 4th of July but I might go Finding Nemo instead.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-29-2003, 06:24 PM:
 
The Hulk is about a 100 times better than Battlefield: Earth. Not a great film by any means, but no disaster. I certainly won't salivate if it loses money (and odds are when all revenue streams are collected, it will make at least some profit.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-30-2003, 12:45 AM:
 
Hulk - Schmulk!

So far this year, (with the exception of a two old movies) I haven't seen a movie that was worth paying 2 cents to watch!

Apparently the movie must have been so boring, one of out patrons (I guess his age about 14) stuck his hand through the cup holder hole and could not pull it back out without taking some hyde off his hand.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-16-2003, 11:51 AM:
 
A lot of people are sick of The Hulk.

UA Union Square -- 4 weeks and OUT!

Loews New Brunswick -- 4 weeks and OUT!

Loews Jersey Gardens -- 4 weeks and OUT!

UA in the Hamptons -- 4 weeks and OUT!

In my region any theaters that hold The Hulk for a 5th week are doubling it up. OTOH the AMC Hamilton and Loews New Brunswick won't pick up Swimming Pool (national break) or Whale Rider.
 

---

Posted by Robin Dorking (Member # 460) on 07-17-2003, 06:47 PM:
 
Her in the UK it starts for 'REAL' Friday. We have had 3 preview days,last Saturday,Sunday and today Thursday, ( waiting to have 7 days of previews of a film before it comes out,on the Friday ). Not done very well at all so far but then I don't know why. But previews don't always bring the patrons in (except so far the Matrix 2 - does anybody know what the story line of that was?).

Thank God I was on holiday before the first day preview. I did not have to watch the run through.

Watched today about 10 minutes of the desert scene near the end with the helicopters. CGI is . I never knew helicopters could fly like that, like ... bricks. Makes bubble bees fly with grace and they are supposed to be aerodynamicaly impossible able to fly!!

Seen what I want to see. Will give it a miss except for the ususal technical checks whilst on.

Will be hard, have two prints
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-18-2003, 04:49 AM:
 
Best thing about HULK is, that custumers looked right through it before the premiere, and simply stayed away. Not that I'm happy to run films for an empty cinema, but this way I don't see so many angry people when opening the exit doors. First weeks total 120 tickets ! It will be over soon, very soon...

Per
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-18-2003, 07:08 AM:
 

quote:

---

I saw the trailer for the Hulk, and thought I was watching Shrek 2.....Shrek=Hulk.........Have you seen the two in the same movie together......

---