Rumors regarding the demise of 2003's widely criticized "Hulk" film have been greatly exaggerated, writer James Schamus told MTV News -- especially when you compare the specs of the Ang Lee film to this year's Louis Leterrier "Incredible Hulk".
"The meta narrative is that Ang made this thing that bombed, and now we’ve made one that is a total winner," said Schamus, "but I’m like, 'Wait a second!' In real dollars, if you adjust for inflation, in order to even break even with us it would have had to gross $155 [million]. It grossed about $30 more than that [and] did the same overseas."
Schamus added that the similarities between the two films don't end at the box office receipts, either.
"This thing about Ang’s movie being reviled by critics, go on Rotten Tomatoes and the average review is like 6.2," said Schamus. "And the new one that’s supposedly embraced and loved is also getting 6.2. Its like, 'What planet are we on?'"
While the actual Rotten Tomatoes scores for the 2003 and 2008 films at the time this article was published were 6.1 and 6.7, respectively, Schamus was quick to add that he enjoyed Letterier's "Hulk" immensely and even played a role in bringing the director together with Marvel Studios' Avi Arad, producer on both the 2003 and 2008 films.
Further, Schamus related that the appeal of the Hulk character is that it lends itself to different interpretations and different takes on the same basic story -- with each one standing on its own merits.
"These characters are like Shakespeare," he explained. "'Hamlet' you can do with a different actor every summer."
So what do you think, readers? Was the 2003 "Hulk" really that much worse than 2008's "Incredible Hulk"?