The Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Open Thread

Posted: August 14, 2010 in CCW Nation, CCW Open Thread, Geek Culture, Movies
Tags:

About these ads
Comments
  1. Deemar says:

    Edgar Wright has just surpassed, Quentin Tarantino as my favorite director.

    Scott Pilfrim is a five star movie.

  2. Insideman says:

    I plan to see Scott Pilgrim vs the World on 8/27– hoping to miss the nerds who haven’t showered since Comic Con.

    • The theater I went to was less than half full so that wouldn’t have been an issue for you. Yesterday’s opening numbers for the film did not look good. Hopefully it will get some strong word of mouth and turn it around next week.

      J.

      • Insideman says:

        I bet it played pretty large out here. Friday was $13.8 Expendables, $9.5 Julia (Vomit) Roberts in Eat, Pray, Love (which is supposed to be true shit) and then The Other Guys and FOURTH Scott Pilgrim with around $4.5.

        I do think it will have a strong holdover… but yet another geek film that under performs. Guess we’ll be seeing Deadpool movies for the rest of our lives.

        Oh, fancy that.

        • Deemar says:

          I was gonna see Expendables next, but I’d rather see Pilgrim again

          • Insideman says:

            This is not a brag. Just the truth. I’ve got a pretty big Plasma TV (50″) and a kick ass sound system… So, if I buy the Blu Ray… Do I need to see anything in a theater?

            Except Avatar… I know Jose is going to be first in line for the 8/27 Special Edition 3-D-apalooza Theater relaunch for that.

            In Entertainment Weekly this week… An interviewer talking to James Cameron:

            EW: Let’s talk about the Avatar die-hards. What are they called? Avatards?

            JC: We prefer to call them fans.

            (HA!)

      • Deemar says:

        Yeah Bleedingcool said it’s not looking good numbers -wise.

    • SmokeyClocks says:

      the theater is going to smell no matter what insideman because everyone in it will be shitting their pants in amazement p.s. I saw it at 12:30 in the afternoon today and there was maybe 10 people in the movie theater. I’m hoping this is because of the time I saw it but who knows.

  3. agent42q says:

    I stand by my video.

  4. The Amazing Mike says:

    *Line about about how movie was better than a list of amazingly great things*

  5. Wiglebienie says:

    I saw it twice already haha. I actually went to an advanced screening on Monday, and after the movie there was a Q & A with Edgar Wright, Cera, and Schwartzmen. All 3 were hilarious and really friendly guys. It was pretty awesome to finish the movie and then have one of my favorite directors, and the stars of the movie 15 feet from you. It was great to see it with all the fans of the series, as there was lots of clapping ans cheering throughout the movie. I went and saw it again with different friends at 8:00 on Friday night. The theater was actually almost full. What really surprised me though, was the amount of clapping and cheering by what appeared to be mostly people who had not read the books. I really enjoyed the music in the movie so I went ahead and picked up the soundtrack. There’s really only 1 or two songs on it that I don’t really care for. I do wish it had some more Beck and Broken Social Scene original stuff on it though, because I love all of those tracks. It did take me forever to find though. I finally found it at Barnes & Noble. Picked up their last copy, so if your looking for it, I’d try them first. But yeah I really loved the movie i think it really captured the books overall, but kept it fresh and exciting all at the same time.

    (p.s. Yes it is just as good the second time :])

  6. Pobra says:

    the theater i saw it in was PACKED and the audience broke into applause several times throughout the movie. Especially when the narrator mentioned Toronto at the very beginning. And the 8 bit universal logo went over pretty well too. I’ll be picking up the soundtrack today, i really dug the music in it.

  7. Pobra says:

    the only thing that i didn’t really like about it was the fact that the ‘boss battles’ happened in too quick of succession, so there was no real build up, or time for strong character development. I understand that they HAD to do it this way, but you start to question why Scott would go through so much trouble over a girl that he has only presumably known for a couple weeks. Other than that little gripe, it was truly an epic of epic epicness.

    • You just hit on exactly what I didn’t like about the movie. Outside of the first 20 minutes of the movie there was just NO characteriszation. Becuase of that character delelopement at the beginnning I understood why Scott liked Knives and vice versa. At no point did I feel that way about Ramona. It was all on the surface with her. She just came off as cold and had I not read the books I would have wondered WHY Scott was going through all of this for her. I was totally wishing for Scott and Knives to end up together at the end. They seemed more suited for each other in the movie than Scott and Ramona. And ya, squeezing all the books into only a “matter of days” didn’t help any.

      It really should have been two movies but I understand that clearly wouldn’t happen with a new property. Overall I felt that the movie really didn’t have a heart and for what is essentially a story about relationships, that isn’t really a good thing.

      J.

      • Pobra says:

        agreed 100%. If it wasn’t so funny, original and visually stunning, I would have a much lower opinion of the movie. I do think everyone involved did the absolute best they could. When you have to condense years worth of material into 2 hours, you’re bound to lose all the little moments of character development in favor of the big, bombastic, crowd pleasing stuff.

  8. Insideman says:

    Scott Pilgrim vs the World… And the WORLD wins!

    http://wp.me/pZr1Y-118

  9. TheRichestManinTown says:

    I liked the movie much more than the books. Especially since they fixed all the songs. It was tough to get over how badly written the original songs were.

    • Pobra says:

      but weren’t they supposed to be intentionally bad? Scott and his band mates state several times how crappy they are. They had to make they band sound decent for the film because you actually got to hear them play and they are featured more prominently in the film than the books.

      • TheRichestManinTown says:

        It’s more like the movie actually took the time to write a song. Launchpad McQuack is a total after thought in the book and if you play along with it like I did when I read the book you’d understand that.

  10. One of the more interesting (and apparently controversial) statements about Scott Pilgrim was by film critic Maryann Johanson for flickfilosopher.com in which she described the film as “Twilight for boys” adding “It’s the indulgence of everything a not-quite-adult, no-longer-a-kid manchild could want from women, in a package designed to appeal to not-quite-adult, no-longer-a-kid manchildren who would happily see their lives in the metaphors of the comic books, sitcoms, and videogames they were weaned on.” Then I look at the box office and that, while more critically liked, Scott Pilgrim wound up in fifth place while The Expendables, a film with rather mixed reviews, ended up being number one at the box office.

    I suppose one could say that could be a poor reflection on the tastes of the movie going masses, but I wonder if there isn’t something else at play. See Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, like Kick-Ass, was deliberately marketed towards us comic book geeks, with its protagonists very much self-aware geeks themselves, who do all the cool stuff we can only fantasize about while still being nerds and geeks, who despite being “sensitive,” shy,” and “self-absorbed” still manage to get the girl and win the respect of their peers in the end. The Expendables, by contrast, was marketed as a movie being unapologetically masculine, that it was a “real man’s movie,” featuring characters who were tough, cocky, hard-drinking, heavy smoking, politically incorrect bad-asses who played by their own rules and stuck to their principles and values no matter the cost.

    Guess which film is going to come across as being more appealing, interesting, and attractive for both men and women, which feature characters us nerds and geeks REALLY want to be like? You got it–it’s the films that feature protagonists played by the likes of Slyvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, etc. Even a movie like Inception, which was high on the geek factor, had Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt play similar types of characters. Or, if you’re getting into comic book movies, Robert Downey Jr. and Christian Bale. When it comes to “heroes,” it’s hard to respond favorably to the kind played by the likes of Michael Cera, Arron Johnson, or Seth Rogen.

    • Heck says:

      The Expendables has a much bigger pull. Stallone alone pulls in the dollars. It’s unfair to compare them.

      Scott Pilgrim is like an action version of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

      • But that’s what I’m getting at–why does Stallone pull in the dollars? Remember, even though The Expendables featured a slew of big name action stars, the conventional wisdom was that Scott Pilgrim would open big at the box office. I don’t think one could say it was just because Stallone is a bigger name than Michael Cera, or that Scott Pilgrim, like Watchmen and Kick-Ass, catered more towards a niche-market. Rather, I would have to say that, based on what both movies were being advertised as, what type of characters Stallone and Cera were playing and how an audience reacts to those kinds of characters.

        • Heck says:

          I agree with what you’re saying. I saw both films, Expendables because Stallone was a hero of mine as a kid in the Rambo flicks, and besides from Stallone’s screen time the film was fucking terrible.

          If what you mean is that tough guys still rule over us nerds, I sort of agree. Expendables was marketed as a MAN’S MOVIE. Scott Pilgrim was just shown to be an epic of epicness. A good flick. Of course, the testosterone wins.

          Still, I think it’s unfair to compare a flick based off an indie comic with an action flick starring Stallone, Jet Li, Statham, Mickey Rourke, and the other guys. Most of those guys are proven to be box office successes in what they do.

          • Well, testosterone-fueled tough guys rule over us nerds for the simple reason that, deep down, we want to be like them. We want to be confident, independent, and tough as they are. Scott Pilgrim, even though he has pretty decent fighting skills and–eventually–matures over the course of time, is pretty much a unambitious, wimpy-looking, slacker, which is pretty hard to root for, especially when he’s the eponymous hero.

            Also, I do get what you’re saying about Scott Pilgrim and Expendables being different types of films with different kinds of star power. There is some truth in that. But I also think the characters, regardless of the genre, also make a difference, too…or at least the type of characters Stallone and Cera have been known to play, anyway.

            • “Well, testosterone-fueled tough guys rule over us nerds for the simple reason that, deep down, we want to be like them.”

              We do? Holy shit! I never got that memo. I guess I have been feeling wrong this entire time. My life as a nerd has been one big lie. I’m so ashamed. Where’s my flaming Scott Pilgrim katana so I can commit hari kari. :)

              J.

            • Heck says:

              Idk, I think that’s stereotypical. I don’t want to be a Hulk. I’m pretty happy in the way I am, sure I could use a few muscles and a little motivation but I don’t want to be steroid laden. I think Scott is a cool guy. The Scott of the comic series isn’t wimpy. The film portrayed him a bit differently, more slacker-ish.

              My point is, that the general public knows who Stallone and his crew are and have interest in seeing them. An small press, indie comic book series doesn’t have that amount of pull.

              • I don’t necessarily mean we desire to have more steroid-laden muscles like some Pro-Wrestler or anything. Rather, aside from being understood for our crazy passions towards comics, video games, and sci-fi, we also desire to be confident, courageous, principled people, to be seen as “real men” (or “real women”). Perhaps it may be a bit stereotypical, but there may be an element of truth in it.

        • Insideman says:

          Actually, “the conventional wisdom was that Scott Pilgrim would open big at the box office” is NOT true.

          Really, only HOPEFUL GEEKS thought that.

          Universal execs even went so far as to say they KNEW the movie wouldn’t open and would be an expensive failure for the studio. (Budget eventually to be made back by DVD, Blu Ray sales, etc.)

          I can’t even begin to tell you how RARE it is for studio execs to be blunt IN ADVANCE concerning how their own films might perform. As we all know, it is usually the exact opposite– and they are lying that their films will do well.

          The EXACT QUOTE from Deadline.com:

          “This odd but innovative movie based on a comic book is yet another greenlight from the fired Mark Shmuger at Universal. He’s the gift that keeps on giving the studio expensive underperformers. Yet the current regime embraced Scott Pilgrim vs The World as a counterprogramming maneuver this weekend even though they knew auteur filmmaker Edgar Wright’s $60M budget (even with location credits) envelope pusher wouldn’t open or earn out.”

          In short, there was NO reason for Execs to dis the movie because it is apparently a good movie… but the Universal Execs knew Stallone and Roberts would rule.

          So, again, nobody in Los Angeles thought Scott Pilgrim would “WIN” the box office– Period.

          • Deemar says:

            Honesty from corporate suits?

            Amazing!

            I get the sense Universal is also “investing” in Edgar Wright for future business

  11. vegedge says:

    jose,
    are we going to see anymore S.H.I.E.L.D reviews?

    that book is so fucking good. what is marvel smoking? letting that come out. i am surprised they have not thrown deadpool in the middle of it and ruined it.

    hickmans FF is going great to. that guy is gold

  12. Heck says:

    The first 20 min of the film were awesome. It felt really weird to see the characters I’ve grown to love up there in person.

    After that, the film kind of went down hill for me. I thought it was too much of an action flick and Scott wasn’t the same character that I digg. He was really shallow and nerdy. Knives was cool, even though her character had no real development. Ramona was unlikable, even though she was fucking gorgeous (and I liked her). Kim Pine had no moment of clarity as a character, and I didn’t get the whole Toronto scene feel that the books gave.

    I also took note as to how Wallace was reduced to an ongoing gay joke instead of a character in and of himself.

    As a whole, I understand that it could be what I expected. It’s one of my favorite comic books of all time and to impress me with a 90 min flick would be impossible. I guess my realization here is that not everything can be or should be made into a motion picture…

    • Heck says:

      It couldn’t be what I expected.*

      (Sorry, too much to drink.)

    • Pobra says:

      Yeah, i totally agree that the movie didn’t capture that feeling of the Toronto scene. It could have been pretty much any random city. Except for the fact that they said it was Toronto and showed the CN Tower at the end. Oh, and i’ve eaten at the Pizza Pizza in the film MANY times after concerts and nights of partying in the city. That was kinda cool to see.

  13. Deemar says:

    Man I really like the movie, the only issue I had was Michael Cera the guy seems to have only one acting speed.

  14. phil says:

    The review that might actually persuade me to see this movie

    bare in mind, I still plan on seeing Kick-a$$

    • Deemar says:

      Heh!

      Just bought Kick-Ass on dvd today.

      Watching the special features and Mark Millar is such a annoying douchenozzle.

      • phil says:

        He’s just a man not appreciated in his own time.
        Centuries after we’re dust in the wind, the scribes will be writing about his greatness The libraries will be littered with the books of his offspring taking after Millar’s nearly cosmic example

        Just you wait, yeah. Just you wait

        You do know that I’m joking, right?

      • Heck says:

        I hated the Kick-Ass comic book series. Thought it was such shit.

        That said, the film wasn’t bad. I actually sort of enjoyed it..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s