As it stands right now, this year's The Incredible Hulk will most likely gross slightly more or less than Ang Lee's Hulk worldwide. The latter walked away with roughly $245 million, while the former is currently sitting at $220 million ... though it's still making the international rounds. In an article over at The Hollywood Reporter, they ponder why the new (and improved?) Incredible Hulk was considered a success when the 2003 Hulk wasn't (THR noted it was "widely dismissed as a commercial failure").

Both Marvel and Universal are saying they're happy with the way The Incredible Hulk performed at the box office, though there's been no word on a sequel and chances are we ain't gettin' another one. Critically, the two Hulk films aren't very far apart: Rotten Tomatoes has Ang Lee's Hulk at 61%, while The Incredible Hulk is currently sitting at 68%. Fan-wise, I feel it was fairly well-received because a) folks were still coming off the Iron Man high, and b) expectations for the new Hulk were pretty low. Thus, when the film turned out to be kinda, sorta pretty good, it gave us a reason to cheer ... finally ... for an Incredible Hulk live-action movie.

But now that we've had some time to step away from The Incredible Hulk (at least here in the states), what do you think: Was the film a success? And how do you define success? If they choose not to make a sequel, does that mean the film failed ... even though it took in well over $200 million at the box office? Sound off you green freaks ...