Game Changer
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Well Scott Pilgram was ok, I wouldn't go so far as saying it changes the way stories are told...
So just like Sam Whitwicky he gets his life back?
The 1up is in the book too and it basically telegraphed an entire plot device completely nullifying any hint of drama it may have carried. If this is the future of film count me out.
The 1up is in the book too and it basically telegraphed an entire plot device completely nullifying any hint of drama it may have carried. If this is the future of film count me out.
This is what bothers me the most about the movie. The original Scott Pilgrim is certainly sometimes both nerdy and awkward. But he is also portrayed as handsome, popular with girls, and occasionally surprisingly socially adept and appealing. It is quite an uncommon portrait, that steers clear of the most blatant stereo- and archetypes.MovieBob said:
The movie changes Scott into just about any high school movie nerd, and turns the Scott-Ramona pairing into painfully traditional tale of the underdog and the dream girl.
Why forsake a reasonably uncommon and, at least, a tad refreshing characterization (one that plays a significant role in the original story) for one of the most common stereotypes in modern storytelling?
Could you make the spoiler warning [HEADING=2]BIGGER[/HEADING]Just ruined the damn movie for me coz i didnt see the warning.
The film isn't out where I a yet but as a fan I no doubt will.
On a side note, since some people have mentioned this: So far the best video game/based film I've seen is the documentary "The King of King: A Fistful of Quarters".
On a side note, since some people have mentioned this: So far the best video game/based film I've seen is the documentary "The King of King: A Fistful of Quarters".
While Scott Pilgrim might have had the most explicit portrayal of an extra life system, this--I feel--is not the first, best or most game breaking use of an audience familiar and comfortable with a gaming world. That particular distinction goes to Run Lola Run. Its entire narrative is predicated on the mechanic of learning from one's mistakes, even those that were formally mortal.
Now, I'm not trying to bash Scott Pilgrim. I really dug it. I really dug the comics. So far I haven't had a problem distinguishing the two in my head 'cause they are so radically different. The comics had more time to tell a story and I had more time to read it, at my own pace. As such, it's far more multifaceted, and that's a fun little thing. It is not, however, something that enhances Scott's character in the slightest. He's still a fairly aloof idiot until well after the halfway point of of the story. And that's the point. You're not supposed to like him 'cause he's a genuinely great person. You like him 'cause you know that guy. His growth later on makes sense and you cross your fingers that certain folk in reality will learn from it. I think the same can be said of the film, only on a scaled down basis. Where the comics had time to devote to Scott's past, present and future, as well as his love life, professional endeavors, self-esteem, artistic goals, perception of reality, and probably 15 other things that I missed, the film had a limited time, so it picked its battles. Those that it showed, it did a fine job with.
And enough with hatin' on Michael Cera. You don't like him 'cause he's played the same mumbling infant that's too smart for his own good over and over again? Well guess what: somebody decided to give him a part wherein he kicks more ass per square inch than most Street Fighter characters and his friends try to get him to shut up on account of his humorously loud jackassery. That's right, Scott Pilgrim is the anti-Michael Cera part. Not the anti-Michael Cera, but the antithesis to his usual part. The dude's an actor. Let him act. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.
But I digress. What I dug about Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is not that it was the first movie to take advantage of our game-addled minds, knowing that we would understand it. I encourage everyone here, once again, to see Run Lola Run for that. Even if you think I'm off base on my assessment of it as thoroughly game influenced, it's still a hell of a good movie, and hey! Street cred for subtitles! But anywho, what distinguishes the Scott Pilgrim movie is that it takes our understanding of those video game tropes to the Nth degree, and in so doing might pull off a funny little thing that no one expected: give us something to talk about with the generation before us. They understand how to watch a movie. If Scott Pilgrim can make them see a little bit of how we perceive the world, then we might come to some greater recognition of one another.
And seriously, quit your bitchin' about Michael Cera. You want somebody to hate on? How 'bout his agent? Little dude's trying to branch out as hard as he can and no one's givin' him a shot. If they do and then he fails miserably at his craft, I'll be the first one to bring it up. 'Til then, there are other people's balls to jump on that deserve it far more.
Now, I'm not trying to bash Scott Pilgrim. I really dug it. I really dug the comics. So far I haven't had a problem distinguishing the two in my head 'cause they are so radically different. The comics had more time to tell a story and I had more time to read it, at my own pace. As such, it's far more multifaceted, and that's a fun little thing. It is not, however, something that enhances Scott's character in the slightest. He's still a fairly aloof idiot until well after the halfway point of of the story. And that's the point. You're not supposed to like him 'cause he's a genuinely great person. You like him 'cause you know that guy. His growth later on makes sense and you cross your fingers that certain folk in reality will learn from it. I think the same can be said of the film, only on a scaled down basis. Where the comics had time to devote to Scott's past, present and future, as well as his love life, professional endeavors, self-esteem, artistic goals, perception of reality, and probably 15 other things that I missed, the film had a limited time, so it picked its battles. Those that it showed, it did a fine job with.
And enough with hatin' on Michael Cera. You don't like him 'cause he's played the same mumbling infant that's too smart for his own good over and over again? Well guess what: somebody decided to give him a part wherein he kicks more ass per square inch than most Street Fighter characters and his friends try to get him to shut up on account of his humorously loud jackassery. That's right, Scott Pilgrim is the anti-Michael Cera part. Not the anti-Michael Cera, but the antithesis to his usual part. The dude's an actor. Let him act. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.
But I digress. What I dug about Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is not that it was the first movie to take advantage of our game-addled minds, knowing that we would understand it. I encourage everyone here, once again, to see Run Lola Run for that. Even if you think I'm off base on my assessment of it as thoroughly game influenced, it's still a hell of a good movie, and hey! Street cred for subtitles! But anywho, what distinguishes the Scott Pilgrim movie is that it takes our understanding of those video game tropes to the Nth degree, and in so doing might pull off a funny little thing that no one expected: give us something to talk about with the generation before us. They understand how to watch a movie. If Scott Pilgrim can make them see a little bit of how we perceive the world, then we might come to some greater recognition of one another.
And seriously, quit your bitchin' about Michael Cera. You want somebody to hate on? How 'bout his agent? Little dude's trying to branch out as hard as he can and no one's givin' him a shot. If they do and then he fails miserably at his craft, I'll be the first one to bring it up. 'Til then, there are other people's balls to jump on that deserve it far more.
Scott Pilgrim isn't the first movie to give the lead character 1-Ups. Run, Lola, Run did so in 1998, with the lead character appearing to learn from her past deaths the same way that Scott Pilgrim did.
Of course, Lola didn't draw any attention to the video gameyness of its plot at all, and simply assumed the audience would get it. In that case, perhaps Run, Lola, Run is the contemporary "cinematic" video game with unlimited continues to Scott Pilgrim's 16-bit self-aware flashiness.
EDIT: I swear, the above post did not exist when I started typing this.
Of course, Lola didn't draw any attention to the video gameyness of its plot at all, and simply assumed the audience would get it. In that case, perhaps Run, Lola, Run is the contemporary "cinematic" video game with unlimited continues to Scott Pilgrim's 16-bit self-aware flashiness.
EDIT: I swear, the above post did not exist when I started typing this.
Dah, you ninja'd me too. I was about to call Run-Lola-Run myself. So I'll refer to another one: Cluedo. That movie actually went one step further, playing alternate endings in different cinemas with different culprits being guilty (like the game). If you get the DVD, they show all of the guilty parties, one after the other with the scenario being reinvented each time.Plankhead said:
I don't think Pilgrim is a "game changer". It isn't even doing anything special. It is just using that age old plot device of having the lowest point in the film just before a sudden twist/change in fortune/deus ex machina. There is nothing note worthy about Pilgrim's presentation of the plot device.
Please post warnings in the main paragraph on the page , I will hopefully forget this In a few months when I see this on demand, but It can ruin many's experiences, the short distance between warning and the spoiler itself failed in use. Just saying.MovieBob said:
Agreed.Jimmybobjr said:
Hell, Kick Ass was a better movie than this. Now I see what people see in this movie, but there is just soooooo much hipster pandering and meaningless action/drama for the sake of action/drama scenes going on I really couldn't care less.
SPvsWorld is this generations Realty Bites or St. Elmo's Fire, it's somehow suppose to be this deep and analytical view of today's youth and their culture, but in ten years all people will remember is how heartless and pretentious it all really was...-_-
I can already see a new brat pack in development...00
Scott Pilgrim was a good movie but I really don't know why Bob insists on heaping mountains and mountains of praise on it. Yes it was creative and cool and was basically a NES game in a theater, but it wasn't that revolutionary or groundbreaking.
Given it's relatively weak opening weekend, I have doubts it'll have much impact on anything by itself.
I'm sorry I'm not going to read the rest of the comments, so I may in fact be missing a little, but SCREW YOU ESCAPIST. I clicked an interesting-looking link on the front page of the site (which I will note did not have the word "SPOILER" within ten damn feet of it!) and you throw the biggest stupid spoiler at us in the very first paragraph right at EYE FUCKING HEIGHT. I was actually really interested in finding out what happens in this movie, but if you can't contain your stupid ramblings about what you think this means for movies, fine, be that way, and I'm only coming back here once a week for ZP.
Worst part is, you drove me into ranting against a company on the internet.
So much for joining the Publisher's Club. Bye.
Worst part is, you drove me into ranting against a company on the internet.
So much for joining the Publisher's Club. Bye.
I loved Scott Pilgrim but I'm not sure it will have much impact on how films are made in the future, largely due to it's limp opening but also because of the inherently small target audience for the film. What it may do is show movie producers that game and manga enthusiasts are dying to see movies that actually relate to them and will choose them over the typical hyped studio movies.. even if not a lot of others will.
In retrospect, that was probably the biggest mistake in making Scott Pilgrim. The movie itself is extremely well made, and it certainly received enough of a push marketing wise, but who decided it would be a good idea to open it against both Expendables and Eat Pray Love? Ideally, Pilgrim should have been opened in September after the summer movie rush and before the big late fall hitters started coming out. It would not only have benefitted from being given less competition but also from the instant word of moth buzz that comes from being a youth oriented movie released at a time when students are back in school together.
In retrospect, that was probably the biggest mistake in making Scott Pilgrim. The movie itself is extremely well made, and it certainly received enough of a push marketing wise, but who decided it would be a good idea to open it against both Expendables and Eat Pray Love? Ideally, Pilgrim should have been opened in September after the summer movie rush and before the big late fall hitters started coming out. It would not only have benefitted from being given less competition but also from the instant word of moth buzz that comes from being a youth oriented movie released at a time when students are back in school together.
The spoilers are literally right below the warning. I caught it as I was closing the page.Casual Shinji said:
That was kind of a dick move
.Could have only been worse if he had bolded it :/
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
At first your argument seemed to contradict itself to me. "Scott comes back to life, lots of characters come back to life, the 1-UP will change movies forever." But taken out of context of this shitty movie I see what you're saying. Not so much the 1-UP itself, just any real easy resurrection. I can see that.
It's pretty ironic that you brought up the McLuhan scene in Annie Hall, because you're pretty much as full of shit on this as the guy babbling about McLuhan. Look, this movie is not the huge culture-changing phenomenon that your continued fellatio is making it out to be. I'm sorry dumb shit like Expendables makes money and not movies like this but come the fuck on, man.
Also somebody said this in the review thread but why do you keep referring to Equilibrium like it's some standard for action movies to be held up to? The Matrix, yes, but not some completely pretentious Matrix knock off that's responsible for letting Kurt Wimmer stay in the director's chair and give us Ultraviolet.
Also somebody said this in the review thread but why do you keep referring to Equilibrium like it's some standard for action movies to be held up to? The Matrix, yes, but not some completely pretentious Matrix knock off that's responsible for letting Kurt Wimmer stay in the director's chair and give us Ultraviolet.
I seem to recall that there was a Jason Statham film called Crank that deliberately aped an old school video game aesthetic, but perhaps I only dreamed it.