That does not make me feel better...I wanted it to do well and I'm well aware of the box office numbers from last weekend. How does that contribute to the discussion we're having?
Scott Pilgrim...WTF??
- Thread starter stueyross
- Start date
I'm already planning on seeing it again too.
I've only read the first volume of the series and thought it was okay, although not mind blowing. But, I thought the movie was fantastic. Best time I've had in the theater this year. Now I have to finish reading the books...
I've only read the first volume of the series and thought it was okay, although not mind blowing. But, I thought the movie was fantastic. Best time I've had in the theater this year. Now I have to finish reading the books...
Gideon tells Scott that "he was in a bad place" when he organized the League of Evil Exes. It wasn't as elaborate as the comics' explanation, and may or may not be the true answer in the movie, as opposed to a flippant brush-off. I suppose it depends...
...on when he chipped Ramona. If it was before she met Scott, it suggests Gideon had a more elaborate plan, but if it was afterward, when he met her again during the movie (say, he slapped it on her neck in the club while the band was playing and then she immediately went off with him), then, yeah, it's probably just that he took the break-up really badly, starting with elaborate revenge schemes before resolving to get her back via mind control.
The film wasn't - they don't spend over $70,000,000 on niche movies. It was aimed at the mainstream and flopped.
^ This is true but it was also targeted at the fans of the books. I'm not whining and complaining about it flopping. I'm just disappointed.
Yes, exactly. Not unlike Fight Club.
It's not quite clear to me why it was such a terrible flop - some people say it's down to a growing dislike for Cera and some have said that, like Serenity, the cult like pushing of it by fans put people off. I certainly know I was sick of hearing about it by the time it launched and I'd read the books (well four of them).
It actually reminds me of "Snakes on a Plane" with the amount of hype it got, that flopped big time as well. Hyped for months before thanks to Sam Jackson's infamous delivery of a line and then nadda.
I don't think that can be right. The huge mass of potential cinema-going public do not listen to sci fi geeks. Ever. Serenity succeeded or failed on its own merits.
The thing geeks forget about is that they live in a bubble. So the hype stays inside that tiny region of geek space and never actually sees the light of the real world day. Snakes on a Plane, Watchmen, Serenity, etc... Star Trek for some time, too.
I myself didn't even know that this movie or comic books existed until a couple of days ago. "Scott Pilgrim... who the fuck??" is actually the response from everyone I talked to, too. And when I showed them the trailers, it was indeed "what the fuck". LOL.
I myself didn't even know that this movie or comic books existed until a couple of days ago. "Scott Pilgrim... who the fuck??" is actually the response from everyone I talked to, too. And when I showed them the trailers, it was indeed "what the fuck". LOL.
I didn't see anything like the kind of buildup that Serenity, Watchmen, or Snakes on a Plane got. I saw a couple of trailers, in the theater, mind you, and a couple of my IRL friends had read it and were excited about it. Maybe a couple of cartoon avatars in the last couple weeks, but those only became really popular once the movie was released. That's it. Using the search feature, I find only one thread about the movie before it came out, reacting to the trailer, and another about the tie-in video game. That seems about par.
The only marketing hype I saw for it has been through the facebook page for to be honest. I don't watch TV but my friends have said they only saw a couple of the TV spots and only knew about the film because I showed them the first trailer.
I just saw a Scott Pilgrim ad at the grocery store. 
But yeah, while there has been a substantial amount of marketing, I haven't seen hype anywhere near the level a lot of movies get.
I think there have been a lot of web ads, though, and from what I hear they're kind of obtrusive and are therefore pissing people off.
But yeah, while there has been a substantial amount of marketing, I haven't seen hype anywhere near the level a lot of movies get.I think there have been a lot of web ads, though, and from what I hear they're kind of obtrusive and are therefore pissing people off.
It means a lot of people are being dicks in here because someone doesn't like something when 95% of the planet doesn't like the damn movie.
It's starting to become like Firefly or Arrested Development sytle assholicness in here.
If the entire planet had seen the movie to evaluate it and come to the determination that 95% of them don't like it then the movie would be a smash hit. Most moviegoers weren't drawn by the marketing campaign to see the movie.
You mean doing things like being needlessly antagonistic in an otherwise civil thread?
You know what...I thought I was being pretty civil...it was Dream who out of no where posted that it was a good thing the film was a flop.
I think I read an article that pretty accurately surmised why the film failed to capture the attention of the mainstream audience. I think while the movie may have been targeted to the mainstream similar to Juno or any other quirky teen comedy, there are some notable differences. Firstly, the film is actually a comedy action film, which means higher budget and more chance for failure if the film didn't do well and it hasn't. I think people were expecting something along the lines of Juno but for males (the casting of Michael Cera might have been the linchpin) but Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a very specific kind of movie.
What I mean by that is that it should never have been marketed to a mainstream audience, which of course is a idiotic statement since it had to have been in order to do any business. I guess then expectations would have needed to be significantly lowered. The thing about Scott Pilgrim -- at least the movie adaptation -- is that it is very much made by a niche audience with a niche audience in mind. It's about the young narcissistic hipster that grew up playing Final Fantasy, Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda. It's also about a very specific generation that was raised and dosed in pop culture. Comic-books, popular TV show's, and video games. The film is also about growing up, and I think my favorite moment of the entire film is when Scott and Ramona are walking together and Scott says, to paraphrase, "I don't know if you're into drugs -- I'm not -- but if you are then I totally am" and that really summarized a lot of my growing up for me. It was trying to do whatever it took to please a girl, even if it meant compromising yourself. So naturally it only makes sense for the film to be about growing up and standing up for yourself, because with the outlets today for contemporary kids like texting, the Internet -- all of the stuff the film covers -- it adds to the whole generational divide I think the film had for certain moviegoers.
I say this because when I saw the movie it was with a bunch of 20 year-old kids and younger like myself. I saw the film in particular with my friend who is much older. The entire audience was roaring throughout the entire film -- laughing at things like all of the homages to video games as well as when Young Neil plays the Final Fantasy theme on his guitar -- all of which was lost on my friend. There were certain moments that my friend enjoyed and laughed at, but for the most part when we left the theater he said it was one of the worst films he's ever seen. I argued that it was a generational divide and that it just didn't appeal to his cultural generational upbringing, but he argued that even though he didn't get or understand half of the references the movie made, he still felt like he was watching a comic-book turned into a movie turned into a video game, and he said he has no desire to see a video game.
Well, I think that's a valid criticism, and while I don't think the movie in itself was a literal video game, I think it was definitely inspired by the visual and auditory motifs of playing a video game. I think honestly Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is an amalgamation of different aspects of a certain youth culture that was never meant to appeal beyond anybody who has ever played a game of Tetris or Dance Dance Revolution. Or for anyone who hasn't read a comic-book or been exposed to how texting can complicate things. It's a very niche, specific type of film and I'm not sure it was wise to ever expect it to reach a wide audience. There are certain things that will always appeal to wide audiences -- superheroes like Batman & Spider-Man, movie franchises like James Bond, and romantic comedies -- and I think if anything with the disappointments financially at least of such niche comic-book movies like Kick-Ass and Watchmen it has certainly help prove that the general audience won't pay attention to them like the filmmakers or studios were hoping they would.
Which is fine -- I think had they found a way to make Scott Pilgrim for $30 or $40 million instead of $70 million -- it might be faring better. Or at the very least found ways of avoiding the avalanching "It was a FLOP!" exclamations that have been floating all around the blogosphere for a few days now. Regardless, I think films like Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World are destined for niche audiences and eventual cult classic status. It doesn't matter to me, though -- I heartily enjoyed the film for its witty, clever inventiveness and its relentless pacing and narrative structure. It was one of the most consistently funny movies I've seen all year, and perhaps one of the most daring. Let's hope this doesn't impede studios to greenlight more movies like this -- let's just hope they have different expectations.
What I mean by that is that it should never have been marketed to a mainstream audience, which of course is a idiotic statement since it had to have been in order to do any business. I guess then expectations would have needed to be significantly lowered. The thing about Scott Pilgrim -- at least the movie adaptation -- is that it is very much made by a niche audience with a niche audience in mind. It's about the young narcissistic hipster that grew up playing Final Fantasy, Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda. It's also about a very specific generation that was raised and dosed in pop culture. Comic-books, popular TV show's, and video games. The film is also about growing up, and I think my favorite moment of the entire film is when Scott and Ramona are walking together and Scott says, to paraphrase, "I don't know if you're into drugs -- I'm not -- but if you are then I totally am" and that really summarized a lot of my growing up for me. It was trying to do whatever it took to please a girl, even if it meant compromising yourself. So naturally it only makes sense for the film to be about growing up and standing up for yourself, because with the outlets today for contemporary kids like texting, the Internet -- all of the stuff the film covers -- it adds to the whole generational divide I think the film had for certain moviegoers.
I say this because when I saw the movie it was with a bunch of 20 year-old kids and younger like myself. I saw the film in particular with my friend who is much older. The entire audience was roaring throughout the entire film -- laughing at things like all of the homages to video games as well as when Young Neil plays the Final Fantasy theme on his guitar -- all of which was lost on my friend. There were certain moments that my friend enjoyed and laughed at, but for the most part when we left the theater he said it was one of the worst films he's ever seen. I argued that it was a generational divide and that it just didn't appeal to his cultural generational upbringing, but he argued that even though he didn't get or understand half of the references the movie made, he still felt like he was watching a comic-book turned into a movie turned into a video game, and he said he has no desire to see a video game.
Well, I think that's a valid criticism, and while I don't think the movie in itself was a literal video game, I think it was definitely inspired by the visual and auditory motifs of playing a video game. I think honestly Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is an amalgamation of different aspects of a certain youth culture that was never meant to appeal beyond anybody who has ever played a game of Tetris or Dance Dance Revolution. Or for anyone who hasn't read a comic-book or been exposed to how texting can complicate things. It's a very niche, specific type of film and I'm not sure it was wise to ever expect it to reach a wide audience. There are certain things that will always appeal to wide audiences -- superheroes like Batman & Spider-Man, movie franchises like James Bond, and romantic comedies -- and I think if anything with the disappointments financially at least of such niche comic-book movies like Kick-Ass and Watchmen it has certainly help prove that the general audience won't pay attention to them like the filmmakers or studios were hoping they would.
Which is fine -- I think had they found a way to make Scott Pilgrim for $30 or $40 million instead of $70 million -- it might be faring better. Or at the very least found ways of avoiding the avalanching "It was a FLOP!" exclamations that have been floating all around the blogosphere for a few days now. Regardless, I think films like Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World are destined for niche audiences and eventual cult classic status. It doesn't matter to me, though -- I heartily enjoyed the film for its witty, clever inventiveness and its relentless pacing and narrative structure. It was one of the most consistently funny movies I've seen all year, and perhaps one of the most daring. Let's hope this doesn't impede studios to greenlight more movies like this -- let's just hope they have different expectations.
Last edited:
Similar threads
