comment #1

Arran says ...

It's just the opening. Remember that Lee's Hulk plummeted 70% in the second weekend when people realised it was shit. I'd say this one will get much better word of mouth, and drops will be less steep.

comment #2

Doug Pratt says ...

The initial anticipation to see a 'Hulk' movie was much stronger with the first film, and so many people felt burned by it that they'll wait for home video on the second. Any idea which one cost more, adjusted for inflation?

comment #3

iamwhoiam says ...

Iron Man set a very high bar to the whole genre this summer. Smashing things is just not enough anymore. You need to have characters, well written dialogues and at least some dose of humor. All the above is nowhere to be found in the new Hulk. I saw it today and was highly disappointed, especially since the biggest reaction from the crowd was when Downey Jr. came in for 10 seconds. I can understand now why Norton was so unhappy with the result.
Having said that, Ang Lee's movie wasn't good either, and had a weaker lead actor, so maybe this specific character is just jinxed...

comment #4

dp4m says ...

I have to agree with Arran until we see how much "legs" the film has. In addition, even regardless of that, Marvel has to be genuinely happy with how well the "shared universe" concerpt seems to be playing with the reboot even if they don't make as much bank on this film as they will on Iron Man. Sometimes a good foundation is its own reward...

comment #5

Colin says ...

Lee's Hulk dropped 69.7% in its second weekend, the biggest drop ever for a movie that made over about $23 million in its first weekend (the only other movie making over $20 million in its first weekend to drop by more in its second weekend was "Eragon"). In other words, Lee's Hulk got horrible word of mouth, which deflated the opening weekend box office for "The Incredible Hulk" just as "Batman & Robin" did for "Batman Begins."

The argument would be that, just as "Begins" had much better legs than the stunted "Batman & Robin," "The Incredible Hulk" should have much better legs than "Hulk," and the A- Cinemascore rating is a good start in that direction. Of course, "Begins" is in a different league than "The Incredible Hulk," so I don't expect similar legs, but at the same time, you have to think that the reaction to the "The Incredible Hulk" would lead to solid DVD sales vis a vis "The Hulk," especiallly if there is a "Norton cut."

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

All things considered, Hulk 2.0 could have done a lot worse. In fact, everyone thought it would, too. The real problem is that you can't tell this Hulk from Transformers and Cloverfield. The other one at least had a personality and a director coming off a very big action/drama. No one knows who the Transporter guy is, and he should actually be lucky to get such a rebound after the lackluster box office of Danny the Dog. [That was one of Jet's best recent films, too...]

Universal's real concern, though, is the Mummy 3. If they bet wrong, they might get another Evan Almighty on their hands.

comment #7

DarthCorleone says ...

I think the average moviegoer does not really care or know about the distinction in directors, studios, or actors. It's just the Hulk, and they were already unimpressed five years ago.

As for "legs," I'm probably this movie's audience, and the tepid response isn't going to get me in the theater. With the crowded summer market, it gets harder and harder for *any* movie to have "legs." If you miss it in the first two weeks, there's probably something else that has already displaced it on your priority queue.

When Indiana Jones can't even top the box office for two consecutive weeks (granted, it had horrible word of mouth to which I contributed), you know the rules of the business have changed.

comment #8

Richardson says ...

"When Indiana Jones can't even top the box office for two consecutive weeks (granted, it had horrible word of mouth to which I contributed), you know the rules of the business have changed."

I don't think Paramount is unhappy with the grosses of 'Indy'; it's just that its second weekend was against a movie that everybody who saw rushed out to see immediately.

To put it into perspective, the second weekend of 'Iron Man' would also have lost to the opening weekend of 'Sex and the City'. But 'SatC' dropped by more than 60% in its second weekend, because most of the target audience saw it immediately. 'Indy' has pretty decent legs for a movie which opened to $100 mil -- it seems like it will pass $300 before it's done. Making 3x your opening weekend gross is pretty solid.

comment #9

Colin says ...

Actually, I just looked at the numbers, and Eragon's second weekend was Christmas weekened, which partially helps explain its drop. In fact, it ended up grossing more than 3 times its opening week gross ($75.03 million). "The Hulk" is truly in a league of its own in terms of "big" movies which had the bottom fall out after opening weekend.

comment #10

LexG says ...

"Mariska Hargitay."

Let's see how the Hulk fares against GURU PITKA and the last blast of pre-hausfrau Alba Hotness.

comment #11

Jamie says ...

The tepid (at best) reviews for Get Smart and The Love Guru will surely help boost Hulk's second weekend.

I saw it in NYC yesterday with an averageish crowd and the reaction for Downey was huge. Completely trumped the rest of the movie.

comment #12

arch451 says ...

Perhaps the point of this comparison is to show that the new hulk movie did not improve on the last hulk movie. It is commercially profitable but hardly a hit. Considering that is has zero artistic merit, I wonder why this new hulk movie was even made. The last hulk film (in 2003) was considered a disappointment. However, it made money and so the studios just keep shoveling it out. The reason the hulk movies are compared to the fantastic 4 movies is because they are also shit and yet they are somewhat profitable.

By the way, why did they use the exact same CGI hulk in this last movie even though it looks nothing like Edward Norton? I swear, King Kong looked more like Andy Serkis than the hulk looks like Edward Norton.

comment #13

MMing says ...

I'm not sure you can tell very much by the midweek box office, but I think the most telling sign of things to come for The Incredible Hulk is the Sunday hold. It only dropped 15% from Saturday, compared to 2003 Hulk's 24% drop. That's a VERY good sign for word of mouth and potential holds to come.

comment #14

Fien Print says ...

The reputation on Ang Lee's "Hulk" is, of course, all about the toxic word-of-mouth and all that stuff -- me, I like the darned thing right up until its third act -- but if you head over to Rotten Tomatoes, you see...

61% Fresh Overall. That's not so very horrible. "Lust, Caution" had a 69% Fresh.

That goes down to 53% on Cream of the Crop, but you still see positive reviews from folks like Andrew Sarris, Roger Ebert, Michael Wilmington, Manola Dargis, Pete Travers, Michael Atkinson and Kirk Honeycutt.

"New Hulk" (or "Hulk Zero") is at 66% Fresh overall and 61% Cream of the Crop.

Yes, there's a difference, but not a night-and-day difference.

I'm really too lazy to go and check on which critics liked one Hulk movie and hated the other and analyze what that says about them. But it *might* be telling...

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "To put it into perspective, the second weekend of 'Iron Man' would also have lost to the opening weekend of 'Sex and the City'."

I highly doubt that. Unlike Indy 4, Iron Man was liked by most people.

"it seems like it will pass $300 before it's done. Making 3x your opening weekend gross is pretty solid."

Not if it costs that much already...

arch: "It is commercially profitable but hardly a hit. Considering that is has zero artistic merit, I wonder why this new hulk movie was even made."

You just answered your own question.

comment #16

Gnome de Guerre says ...

Last I saw it didn't look like Fox was going to make FF3. No idea how FF2 did on DVD, but obviously not well enough.

Based on that, and a patent-pending combination of vibes, gut feel (I had clam pancakes for breakfast), and plain old moxie, I'm guessing that if Hulk doesn't cross 175M domestic, it's indicative there won't be enough demand for it on DVD to put it into the black.

Maybe it's a loss-leader though, whatever that means. I saw that term being used somewhere and thought I'd give it a spin.

comment #17

arch451 says ...

I answered why the studio made the film, but what of the artists? Did Edward Norton do this film for a paycheck? Did any of the filmmakers believe they were creating something meaningful?

comment #18

CinemaPhreek says ...

I think the concern it the drop off is matching that of the last one. However, the last was released about a week later and kids are still in school at this point here in LA and I imagine elsewhere so you're midweek numbers are going to be soft.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"I highly doubt that. Unlike Indy 4, Iron Man was liked by most people."

You can doubt all you want, it just makes me more sure that 'Sex and the City's $57,038,404 opening weekend is a higher number than 'Iron Man's $51,190,629 second weekend.

And your standard "No, you have to adjust for inflation" response won't fly in this case.

"Not if it costs that much already..."

Well, first of all, when discussing a movies "legs", the actual cost of the movie has fuck-all to do with it. "Legs" has to do with how long people are still going to see it; if everybody goes to see a movie in the opening weekend, and then it drops off by 70%, even if the movie technically makes money, it's still said to have bad legs, which usually reflects poor word of mouth.

On top of that, DZ, you're going to have to let go of your insistence that 'Crystal Skull' is not a success. Seriously. I know, I know, you're a fucking idiot, so it's hard for you to deal with plain facts that contradict your bizarre opinions, but, as a man much cooler than I once said, "Let it go." If only because it has already earned twice the domestic box office that you predicted, and is still in the top 5.

comment #20

Rothchild says ...

Ed Norton is a dick, but he does love Marvel Comics and especially the Hulk character. Look, websites like Poland, Box Office Mojo, and similar places look for drama or a story where there is none. In this case, it's a minor miracle that they got an opening weekend this big when the first film is almost universally loathed. I admire what Lee tried to pull off and there are some open minded and adventurous genre fans that dug it, but as whole that movie was reviled.

Universal, Marvel, and everyone involved has been breathing a consistent and lasting sigh of relief since the numbers came in. I said this before, but the consensus around town was that this movie would be lucky to hit 100 million. This is all great news. We won't know if there will be a Hulk 2 until the final worldwide gross is in, but there's enough demand to show placing him in The Avengers is a great idea and Marvel just spent 150 million to bring some of the luster back to the brand name.

comment #21

Rothchild says ...

Crystal Skull is a major success financially and that's it. But M. Night shat the bed so fucking badly with The Happening that even I'm starting to forget how terrible Indy IV was.

comment #22

Richardson says ...

Roth - I'm certainly not arguing for the artistic merit of it, but DZ has been saying for months that it would fail, and spent the last month offering stranger and stranger reasoning as to why it is a failure (my favorite was when he said it has "only" made $250 mil profit worldwide).

comment #23

Rothchild says ...

It's a very big success. D.Z. is always wrong about everything. This would seem like hyperbole if it was said about anyone else, but I honestly think he has serious mental problems. Or it's an act.

comment #24

tjfar67 says ...

Name that movie: hint, it's a "financial failure."

Domestic: $279,472,621 43.7%
+ Foreign: $359,456,424 56.3%
= Worldwide: $638,929,045

comment #25

Rothchild says ...

The Shadow (1994)

comment #26

Roman says ...

"I highly doubt that. Unlike Indy 4, Iron Man was liked by most people."

Are you saying I'm not most people? I am people. And Indy 4 will outgross Iron Man domestically and internationally.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "You can doubt all you want, it just makes me more sure that 'Sex and the City's $57,038,404 opening weekend is a higher number than 'Iron Man's $51,190,629 second weekend."

Well yes, but most people hadn't seen SATC before its opening weekend. That's a completely different story with Iron Man. The fact that the latter movie still managed to get a higher average than usual its second weekend [and over a film which was supposed to dominate it, too]
says more about Iron Man's success than anything else.

"Well, first of all, when discussing a movies "legs", the actual cost of the movie has fuck-all to do with it. "Legs" has to do with how long people are still going to see it; if everybody goes to see a movie in the opening weekend, and then it drops off by 70%, even if the movie technically makes money, it's still said to have bad legs, which usually reflects poor word of mouth."

Indy 4 didn't make money, and it had bad WOM.

Roth: "Crystal Skull is a major success financially and that's it."

I'd call it an average success. A major success would be the last Indy film.

"It's a very big success. D.Z. is always wrong about everything. "

No it's not, and no I'm not, especially when you compare it to Transformers, WOTW, and Sith.

tj: "Domestic: $279,472,621 43.7%
+ Foreign: $359,456,424 56.3%
= Worldwide: $638,929,045"

Too bad it needed WW sales to make up for lackluster domestic grosses which didn't cover the budget and P+A...

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Roman: "Are you saying I'm not most people? I am people. And Indy 4 will outgross Iron Man domestically and internationally."

Not really, since Iron Man's already closer to $400 million profit than Indy 4...

comment #29

Richardson says ...

DZ - if you are still trying to argue against the fact that the first weekend of 'Sex and the City' outgrossed the second weekend of 'Iron Man', I don't know how to deal with you. Understand that box office is *not* a reflection of quality, and this simple fact -- again, FACT -- does not impugn the honor of 'Iron Man'.

"Well yes, but most people hadn't seen SATC before its opening weekend."

This is the most accurate thing you have ever said. It doesn't really prove anything, but it's the first time I've ever seen you say something which was factually true. Ever.

"Indy 4 didn't make money"
"I'd call it an average success."

DZ reminds me of the narrator of a Shel Silverstein poem, the one about how five is more than four, so he trades four nickels for five pennies.

"Too bad it needed WW sales to make up for lackluster domestic grosses which didn't cover the budget and P+A..."

I don't even know what number you're using to make that claim but, honestly, this statement shows such a profound lack of understanding of the modern film industry, and how "hits" are measured, that I can't. (Much like your insistence that "gross" only means "gross profit", rather than accepting that, in the current parlance, it just means box office receipts.)

Let's just say, an "average hit" makes it money back on DVD, not before. 'Indy 4' by your own previous statement has already made a worldwide profit of $250 million. The fact that it made that money back worldwide does not make it less profitable. (With the value of the dollar lately, it might make it *more* profitable.)

Again, you are arguing against facts. I picture you like John Turturro trying to beat up the fire at the end of 'Zohan'. "Kick those facts' ass DZ! WOOO!!"

comment #30

Richardson says ...

"'Indy 4' by your own previous statement has already made a worldwide profit of $250 million."

I should point out, I don't accept DZ's word for this, I just assume that if he says it, it's presumably more than that, not less.

comment #31

Jimmycrackcorn says ...

I fully expected to like the new one more than the Ang Lee, but in a Hulk vs. Hulk contest, I have to say the first one was better. If only because the battles, when they fiiiinally got going, were more fun than anything in this poorly edited and overfrenetic mess.

comment #32

Kim Voynar says ...

Richardson, your DZ bashing in this thread was just what I needed after the day I had. God, I have tears running down my face from laughing. Thanks. The only thing that would make it better would be for DZ not to make it so damn easy.

Jeez, DZ, can't you for once just TRY not to sound like a moron? You're like some bizarre savant repeating the same thing over and over again while banging your head into the floor. Except, of course, that savants usually have some kind of freakish intellect to counter their weirdness.

comment #33

Redmond says ...

Again, why am the only one who thinks DZ makes the most sense out of anyone here?

At any rate, I think this Hulk will have "legs." It has great word of mouth despite the CGI which is bad but there's worse out there. This weekend will be the true test, but Steve Mason also thinks it'll do well. It was what it was as Jeff said. A great "check your brains at the door" popcorn flick that by all rights should've been a flaming turd. Which is what I went in expecting and walked out feeling it was an equal to Iron Man which, let's be real, was your typical boilerplate superhero origin flick that would've been terrible without Robert Downey Jr.

comment #34

Richardson says ...

"why am the only one who thinks DZ makes the most sense out of anyone here?"

If you can explain to me how the second weekend of 'Iron Man' beat the opening weekend of 'Sex and the City', I'd love to hear that. It seems like a simple factual point.

And the overall point I was making might be clearer if I said that only a few summer movies have ever had a second weekend that beat 'Sex and the City'. 'Sex and the CIty' was just one of those movies that there's a pent up desire to see, so it opens huge and then drops off considerably, quickly, because the need is filled.

comment #35

CinemaPhreek says ...

Damn, IRON MAN hits $300M with tomorrows expected grosses. Still ahead of INDY 4 (not that I want to encourage D.Z.'s delusions, just pointing out an interesting fact)

comment #36

CinemaPhreek says ...

(meant to add "ahead of INDY 4 by $30M domestically")

Apparently, all you have to do is mention that D.Z. isn't the hyper 17 year old I assumed is and is instead some bitter 36 year old guy who lost his child in a custody battle and he disappears. At least it worked on another thread yesterday.

comment #37

Richardson says ...

If that's true, one can only hope that "nurture" is more important for a child than "nature". Because DZ procreating... *shudder*.

comment #38

Richardson says ...

"Damn, IRON MAN hits $300M with tomorrows expected grosses. Still ahead of INDY 4 (not that I want to encourage D.Z.'s delusions, just pointing out an interesting fact)"

I don't mean to disparage 'Iron Man', but 'Indy 4' will be at $300M in a week or so, which is a week quicker than 'Iron Man' got there.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "DZ - if you are still trying to argue against the fact that the first weekend of 'Sex and the City' outgrossed the second weekend of 'Iron Man', I don't know how to deal with you. Understand that box office is *not* a reflection of quality, and this simple fact -- again, FACT -- does not impugn the honor of 'Iron Man'."

I understand, but once again, SATC's first weekend was front-loaded, so it's not really fair to compare it to Iron Man's second weekend-in which a drop was to be expected. If there weren't two other quadrant movies opening against it ['Vegas and Speed Racer], though, Iron Man would have opened a helluva lot higher than SATC. That's why it's technically the more successful of the pair on paper-especially if you compared Iron Man's second weekend to SATC's second weekend.

"DZ reminds me of the narrator of a Shel Silverstein poem, the one about how five is more than four, so he trades four nickels for five pennies."

Actually, I'd change one Lucas for a Bay, an Emmerich and an Abrams, because the guy's got nothing outside of Star Wars.

"I don't even know what number you're using to make that claim but, honestly, this statement shows such a profound lack of understanding of the modern film industry, and how "hits" are measured, that I can't. (Much like your insistence that "gross" only means "gross profit", rather than accepting that, in the current parlance, it just means box office receipts.)"

If I'm wrong, then we wouldn't be discussing how this Hulk is less of a money-maker than the last one.

"Let's just say, an "average hit" makes it money back on DVD, not before. 'Indy 4' by your own previous statement has already made a worldwide profit of $250 million. The fact that it made that money back worldwide does not make it less profitable. (With the value of the dollar lately, it might make it *more* profitable.)"

Perhaps, but the fact that it needs dvd sales to be truly profitable is why it can't be defined as a hit.

comment #40

Richardson says ...

"I understand, but once again, SATC's first weekend was front-loaded, so it's not really fair to compare it to Iron Man's second weekend-in which a drop was to be expected."

The point of the comparison was not to knock 'Iron Man'; the point of the comparison was, it's not reasonable to say that 'Indy's second weekend being defeated by SATC's first is a sign that (1) 'Indy' is a failure, or (2) the overall box office landscape has greatly changed.

I actually agree with the statement you've said above here; the whole point I was making was, SATC was front-loaded. That's why it doesn't say anything about 'Indy', and more than it would about 'Iron Man'.

"If I'm wrong, then we wouldn't be discussing how this Hulk is less of a money-maker than the last one."

This 'Hulk' cost more than the last one, and, so far, this is one is less of a money-maker, but they project that it will be a bigger one. That's why we're talking about it, and that's why you're wrong. That and probable brain damage.

"Perhaps, but the fact that it needs dvd sales to be truly profitable is why it can't be defined as a hit."

Right, and the fact that Indy is already profitable to the tune of $250-$300 worldwide and counting, it can easily be defined as a hit. A movie which needs to get to DVD before being profitable, though, is all the current market requires for a movie to be considered successful. Your bizarre insistence that a movie must make all of its money back and then some in the US alone or it's not a hit has nothing to do with reality. And, even if that *were* the sole qualification to be a hit, 'Indy' is on target to hit that mark easily.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

"The point of the comparison was not to knock 'Iron Man'; the point of the comparison was, it's not reasonable to say that 'Indy's second weekend being defeated by SATC's first is a sign that (1) 'Indy' is a failure, or (2) the overall box office landscape has greatly changed."

That would be the case under normal circumstances, but Indy 4 had a significantly lower gross, compared to SATC, than Iron Man. No one thought Indy 4 could be beaten.

"This 'Hulk' cost more than the last one, and, so far, this is one is less of a money-maker, but they project that it will be a bigger one. That's why we're talking about it, and that's why you're wrong. That and probable brain damage."

It's only a bigger money-maker if it becomes more of a must-see than the last one-not just less unsuccessful.

"Right, and the fact that Indy is already profitable to the tune of $250-$300 worldwide and counting, it can easily be defined as a hit. A movie which needs to get to DVD before being profitable, though, is all the current market requires for a movie to be considered successful."

It's only a hit if it didn't need worldwide and dvd sales to save it.

comment #42

messiahcomplexio says ...

trade a lucas for a bay???

Damn...just...damn.

comment #43

breadlymoore says ...

"granted, it had horrible word of mouth to which I contributed"

CRYSTAL SKULL doesn't have horrible word of mouth. Hate to break to the geeks, but people really like the film.

comment #44

allstar397 says ...

I'm pretty sure everybody's making too big of a deal about this 2nd weekend vs. Sex and the City opening. Exactly 5 movies in history have had equal or larger 2nd weekends: Shrek 2, Spider Man, Pirates 2, Spider Man 3, Harry Potter 1.

comment #45

allstar397 says ...

to correct wording above, only 5 movies have had larger 2nd weekends than SATC's opening weekend

comment #46

Richardson says ...

allstar - thank you, yes, that was my point. Also, one of those, Harry Potter, was not a summer movie, and the two Spider-Man movies had no competition in their second weekends, and Shrek 2's second weekend was a holiday weekend. (Not sure about Pirates 2.)

comment #47

Richardson says ...

"That would be the case under normal circumstances, but Indy 4 had a significantly lower gross, compared to SATC, than Iron Man."

Ridiculous. We're talking seven million dollars difference in the second weekend of two huge blockbusters. Keep spinning, though, it's always a pleasure to watch.

"No one thought Indy 4 could be beaten."

I'd love to see how you get around the fact that the reason some people assumed Indy 4 couldn't be beaten (hardly everybody, but I assume by everybody, you mean "you") was that it grossed so much in its opening weekend. It outgrossed 'Iron Man'.

"It's only a bigger money-maker if it becomes more of a must-see than the last one-not just less unsuccessful."

That's a pretty ridiculous statement.

"It's only a hit if it didn't need worldwide and dvd sales to save it."

A, it will be in a profit based on US sales alone, B, that's not true based on the realities of film production today.

comment #48

T. S. Idiot says ...

Richardson sez: "A movie which needs to get to DVD before being profitable, though, is all the current market requires for a movie to be considered successful. Your bizarre insistence that a movie must make all of its money back and then some in the US alone or it's not a hit has nothing to do with reality."

Because this is so obvious, why do we pay so much attention to the domestic BO? Jabbering on and on about grosses is much less interesting than arguing about the merits of individual movies. I avoided Uncle Ang's Hulk until recently and found it moderately entertaining, despite the disastrous casting of Eric I-can't-act-a-lick Bana.

Nevertheless, the fact that SACT has legs, making almost $10 million its third weekend, should alert the powers that be that adults, even women, want to go to the movies in the summer, as Mark Harris argued in his EW column. So desperate is this need that they will overlook deadly pacing, unflattering lighting of everyone but Davis and Noth, and the worst score I've heard since the sixties.

Speaking of the sixties, Harris' Pictures at a Revolution should be required reading for all who finance and distribute movies. Hollywood honchos didn't have a clue in 1967, and they still don't. It's almost a miracle that a handful of good big-budget movies are made each year.

comment #49

Richardson says ...

"Because this is so obvious, why do we pay so much attention to the domestic BO?"

That's a whole other can o'worms. Basically, at some point, the papers started displaying box office grosses like they were baseball scores, and people began to look at it like a direct competition to gross higher. The push came to get the info quicker, quicker, quicker, so suddenly, instead of being out for a month and gradually making its money back, if a movie didn't make its money back in a week, it was called a flop. And since it was being called a flop, people didn't bother to go and theaters didn't want to keep it out.

Then, after that, they started releasing internal tracking numbers, so people began to start trying to predict hit or flop before the movie had even come out. The fact that these numbers frequently prove to be wildly divergent from reality does not stop prognosticators from quoting them.

"Jabbering on and on about grosses is much less interesting than arguing about the merits of individual movies."

The studio business as it stands has to be able to measure quality in some objective way and, since merit and worth is subjective, they seem to have settled on grosses. It is an objective thing to compare movies by, but I agree it doesn't have a positive effect.

"Nevertheless, the fact that SACT has legs, making almost $10 million its third weekend"

The thing is, it dropped more than 60% in its second weekend, which means it really doesn't have legs. But it will come through with a pretty good haul (I'm surprised it's doing so well internationally). The thing is, I don't think it's true that Hollywood ignores women. They always bend all of their comedies and force romantic subplots in on the misguided notion that they will be more appealing to women that way.

But I'm not knocking 'Sex and the City'. It front-loaded into its opening weekend, which is pretty standard for a summer movie. Everybody who wanted to see it rushed out and saw it. And, even without strong legs, it still has less drop off than the original 'Hulk'.

comment #50

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solution