Even better is that Micheal Cerra seems to be playing a version of himself that most "I'm too cool for Cerra now that he's popular" hipsters percieve him as.rabidmidget said:
Game Changer
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
"Fast & The Furious sequel will end with Vin Diesel driving through a translucent question-mark and taking out the bad guy with a Blue Shell."
Someone make this happen. Now.
Someone make this happen. Now.
Yeah, having seen the movie it really seems to me that it will set the bar on such a genre. Gamer movies are very tied to pre-existing genres of film but this could quite possibly be a breaking away into a new vein of film. The irony is that a comic book movie could be the catalyst of video-game movies. That's life for you. Haha!
While the pre-credits were a bit strenuous on the eyes, I genuinely enjoyed everything about this movie. The scene cuts were fantastically done, as can only be expected of Hot Fuzz director Edgar Wright (seriously, go watch that movie, the cinematography is superb).
I felt that the emotion shown, while perhaps not up to the standards of "mainstream" rom-coms, was more what one would actually see in a modern-day relationship such as this. I actually liked the nonsensical and seemingly-unjustified mood swings, because that's how a majority of twenty-somethings function!
I almost had a nerd-gasm right at the beginning, during the Universal logo scene (if you've seen the movie, you'll know what I mean), and the graphic elements made everything pop with the perfect amount of movie+comic-book mixture.
All in all, I think my VERY favorite 'omg, that's awesome' moments came near the end, and is what MovieBob references in this article (MAJOR SPOILERS)
When Scott Pilgrim gets his second life, not only does he go through practically the same scene as before, rectifying any moral slip-ups(just like gamers often do), he ALSO chose to skip through a majority of the dialogue and mooks because he'd done it all before, and wanted to get to the big bad. To gamers EVERYWHERE, that should be such a colossal sign of game-to-movie transferal, as it is common practice to mow down minor baddies and hold the 'next' button through repeated dialogue just to get to the fighting and major decisions! Maybe it's not as major as I'm making it out to be, but it was a wonderful nod to the videogaming generation that inspired so much of the movie.
I felt that the emotion shown, while perhaps not up to the standards of "mainstream" rom-coms, was more what one would actually see in a modern-day relationship such as this. I actually liked the nonsensical and seemingly-unjustified mood swings, because that's how a majority of twenty-somethings function!
I almost had a nerd-gasm right at the beginning, during the Universal logo scene (if you've seen the movie, you'll know what I mean), and the graphic elements made everything pop with the perfect amount of movie+comic-book mixture.
All in all, I think my VERY favorite 'omg, that's awesome' moments came near the end, and is what MovieBob references in this article (MAJOR SPOILERS)
When Scott Pilgrim gets his second life, not only does he go through practically the same scene as before, rectifying any moral slip-ups(just like gamers often do), he ALSO chose to skip through a majority of the dialogue and mooks because he'd done it all before, and wanted to get to the big bad. To gamers EVERYWHERE, that should be such a colossal sign of game-to-movie transferal, as it is common practice to mow down minor baddies and hold the 'next' button through repeated dialogue just to get to the fighting and major decisions! Maybe it's not as major as I'm making it out to be, but it was a wonderful nod to the videogaming generation that inspired so much of the movie.
Please make the spoiler sign bold and big instead of cursive and small. I thought it was
website filler and read over it. Now it got spoiled.
website filler and read over it. Now it got spoiled.
Having literaly just rewatched that film less than 5 minutes ago, as part of my pumping myself for Scott Pilgrim, I'll second this. Espcially with the action sequences where he mangaes to have the very choppy quick cuts but still avoid it merely being confusing as it does with other films. And that's not to mention all the scene cuts it's hard to describe just how effective they are, espcially with such a good script as Hott Fuzz has.ObsessiveSketch said:
I loved the movie the first time I saw it. I loved it even more the second time and no amount of trolls can influence me to think otherwise. I would like to think that down the line SP could influence the filmmakers of the future. Due to its limited commercial success it will probably only survive as a cult classic and a foot note in movie history (at best).
I first watched Annie Hall about two years ago. I've watched it once since then (for a class), and both times I have despised it. Sure, the breaking of the fourth wall is cool, and it's got some funny lines, but as a whole, I hate it.
Scott Pilgrim, I loved. That is all.
Scott Pilgrim, I loved. That is all.
See, the problem is, for a movie to introduce an enduring story-telling element, the movie has to be successful, or it has to be an idea that will have wide-spread appeal.MovieBob said:
Sorry Bob. What Scott Pilgrim did falls outside of both of those qualifiers: it was not wildly successful, and frankly, although growing, the Video Game subculture is still a subculture.
Bob, you're onto something. And here's why.
To paraphrase Inception, an idea is the most persistent virus in the world. Ideas began every movie that any of us have seen, and ideas (even in this faschist remake obsessed movie culture we live in) will ultimate reign supreme, not popularity or box office. Annie Hall didn't make much money. Sure it won an Oscar, but are movies taking notes from A Beautiful Mind? No, You're thinking long term Bob.
And here's what I think is going on long term.
When it comes to movies, the people with the money are trying (and have been trying) to make videogames the new comic books for a long time. What I mean by that is they are optioning video game properties in wait for that opportune time when videogames become truly mainstream in cinema. And when they do, every single game worth knowing about will be made into a movie. This is obvious.
But they haven't hit that point yet. Why? Because the people making the movies (not just the creative people) are trying to find that magic formula. You can argue that the formula hasn't been found for comic book movies either, but based on the sheer amount of resources devoted to finding that magic formula, comic books have become the number one industry in Hollywood. But this can't go on forever, can it? What I mean is that the fever pitch of comic book movie making can't possible sustain itself. So what's next?
An idea, a true game changer, only needs to find the right person to realize it. It doesn't matter where that idea comes from. Hollywood understands this. One only need look back to the bidding war over El Mariachi for evidence of that.
But right now they are looking for the magic formula. They seem to think it's talent + money + adaption of creative work in a different medium = good (a.k.a profitable) movie. Hey, it worked for the Dark Knight right? (I'll concede Superman Returns on this one. Luck plays a huge factor in moviemaking.) Hell it even worked for a theme park ride! So obviously, it'll work just fine for adapting a video game property. Like say, Prince of Persia? That can't lose. Talent behind Harry Potter ($$$) + established property (aka creatively ripped off from mythology) + more $$$ = "eh." I believe you said this Bob.
Why is it so, "eh?"
The problem is that comic books/novels/theme park rides and movies have linearity and lack of interaction in common. This is huge. Adapting one to the other is sometimes as easy as cut and paste. Videogames on the other hand, while looking similar (similar enough to attract the $$) are a completely different beast that eats this whole easy formula alive.
And generally people enjoy each medium, but no one equates them. Ebert claims that games are not art. While that's up for debate, the more cinematic a game gets the more boring (or skippable) it generally gets. And the more game-like a movie gets the more ludicrous it becomes. If you haven't yet, watch the 1st person action scene in Doom.
Let's take an example: Final Fantasy the Spirits Within. This was an absolute sure bet. A game that sold millions coming to your theatre for you to watch in all its "photorealistic" glory. Yet in translation they ditched everything that was remarkable about the game and replaced the plot with an Aliens ripoff. This made neither a good movie or game-like experience, and ended up pissing off both audiences. The Square Hollywood division promptly folded and now lives vicariously through the insane amount of cutscenes in FF13.
I digress.
Here's the real problem - in adapting video games, movies in the past have lost the very magic that made them so beloved in the first place. Yahtzee made that point. Really videogame narratives have always been totally incomprehensible or forgettable knockoffs of movies, so obviously adapting the narrative of a video game is a dead end.
So where's the money?
What Bob points out and Scott Pilgrim does right is it adapts the style and tropes of a video game to tell a compelling story, and it's not even a video game adaption. Think video games are still a subculture? Then why is Avatar the highest grossing film of all time? It's not hard to see how videogame are conceptually linked to that movie. Videogames have embedded themselves so deeply in culture that the time is ripe for a golden age of video game movies.
It's only a matter of time before this kernel of an idea gets in the right hands of a director on a hot game property with money behind them. And I for one, can't wait. And not just because I'm sick of comic book movies.
To paraphrase Inception, an idea is the most persistent virus in the world. Ideas began every movie that any of us have seen, and ideas (even in this faschist remake obsessed movie culture we live in) will ultimate reign supreme, not popularity or box office. Annie Hall didn't make much money. Sure it won an Oscar, but are movies taking notes from A Beautiful Mind? No, You're thinking long term Bob.
And here's what I think is going on long term.
When it comes to movies, the people with the money are trying (and have been trying) to make videogames the new comic books for a long time. What I mean by that is they are optioning video game properties in wait for that opportune time when videogames become truly mainstream in cinema. And when they do, every single game worth knowing about will be made into a movie. This is obvious.
But they haven't hit that point yet. Why? Because the people making the movies (not just the creative people) are trying to find that magic formula. You can argue that the formula hasn't been found for comic book movies either, but based on the sheer amount of resources devoted to finding that magic formula, comic books have become the number one industry in Hollywood. But this can't go on forever, can it? What I mean is that the fever pitch of comic book movie making can't possible sustain itself. So what's next?
An idea, a true game changer, only needs to find the right person to realize it. It doesn't matter where that idea comes from. Hollywood understands this. One only need look back to the bidding war over El Mariachi for evidence of that.
But right now they are looking for the magic formula. They seem to think it's talent + money + adaption of creative work in a different medium = good (a.k.a profitable) movie. Hey, it worked for the Dark Knight right? (I'll concede Superman Returns on this one. Luck plays a huge factor in moviemaking.) Hell it even worked for a theme park ride! So obviously, it'll work just fine for adapting a video game property. Like say, Prince of Persia? That can't lose. Talent behind Harry Potter ($$$) + established property (aka creatively ripped off from mythology) + more $$$ = "eh." I believe you said this Bob.
Why is it so, "eh?"
The problem is that comic books/novels/theme park rides and movies have linearity and lack of interaction in common. This is huge. Adapting one to the other is sometimes as easy as cut and paste. Videogames on the other hand, while looking similar (similar enough to attract the $$) are a completely different beast that eats this whole easy formula alive.
And generally people enjoy each medium, but no one equates them. Ebert claims that games are not art. While that's up for debate, the more cinematic a game gets the more boring (or skippable) it generally gets. And the more game-like a movie gets the more ludicrous it becomes. If you haven't yet, watch the 1st person action scene in Doom.
Let's take an example: Final Fantasy the Spirits Within. This was an absolute sure bet. A game that sold millions coming to your theatre for you to watch in all its "photorealistic" glory. Yet in translation they ditched everything that was remarkable about the game and replaced the plot with an Aliens ripoff. This made neither a good movie or game-like experience, and ended up pissing off both audiences. The Square Hollywood division promptly folded and now lives vicariously through the insane amount of cutscenes in FF13.
I digress.
Here's the real problem - in adapting video games, movies in the past have lost the very magic that made them so beloved in the first place. Yahtzee made that point. Really videogame narratives have always been totally incomprehensible or forgettable knockoffs of movies, so obviously adapting the narrative of a video game is a dead end.
So where's the money?
What Bob points out and Scott Pilgrim does right is it adapts the style and tropes of a video game to tell a compelling story, and it's not even a video game adaption. Think video games are still a subculture? Then why is Avatar the highest grossing film of all time? It's not hard to see how videogame are conceptually linked to that movie. Videogames have embedded themselves so deeply in culture that the time is ripe for a golden age of video game movies.
It's only a matter of time before this kernel of an idea gets in the right hands of a director on a hot game property with money behind them. And I for one, can't wait. And not just because I'm sick of comic book movies.
If you take the video game and comic book references from this movie, what do you have? The tale of Mr. Same-In-Every-Movie Michael Cera, hunting lustfully (NOT out of love) after a one-dimensional, undeveloped, unattractive in personality (and physicality imo) plot device. Worse of all, he ultimately
It's a pathetic movie. The box office reflects as much. If it were a charming movie (outside of referencing outdated video games), it would have beaten the (apparently, as I didn't see Expendables) less-than-average action flick it competed against. The idea that using a 1-up is going to lead to the incorporation of other lexicons of our cherished nerd mediums into other mediums is really just wish fulfillment. Annie Hall was successful, critically and commercially. Annie Hall had character and ACTING. Michael Cera vs. The World has one of these aspects, and even that one isn't solid.
learns NOTHING given the theatrical ending!
It's a pathetic movie. The box office reflects as much. If it were a charming movie (outside of referencing outdated video games), it would have beaten the (apparently, as I didn't see Expendables) less-than-average action flick it competed against. The idea that using a 1-up is going to lead to the incorporation of other lexicons of our cherished nerd mediums into other mediums is really just wish fulfillment. Annie Hall was successful, critically and commercially. Annie Hall had character and ACTING. Michael Cera vs. The World has one of these aspects, and even that one isn't solid.
Is it just me or did this movie get a lot of entirely unnecessary hate because it had Michael Cera in it? No, it's not. A hell of a lot of people have their heads squarely up their asses. What's all this about "pretentiousness?" What? I don't sense any, you're lashing out against a teen fad that will die out in less than twenty years and it's making you look stupid.
I doubt any of you bothered to see the film, lest you suffer the almighty awkward of Cera. To be honest, while he tried his very best to be grating, the character was written with bold decisions that really made him likable. If you can't see past one goddamn actor and just start slamming the movie left and right for little things you quite probably only read about on the internet because you never actually saw the damn thing, and then you come here of all places to blab about how awful the movie is when it was the most inspired and risky film I've seen in a decade, and beautifully executed on top of that, you're a cretin and a moron, bottom line, no denying it. You know who else in Hollywood has one thing they bring to every single movie they're in? EVERYBODY. Morgan Freeman, John Travolta, Edward Norton, Woody Harrelson, Clint "I Am Movies" Eastwood, pick anyone. Get the hell over it, it's not going away until Cera gets older. It isn't time for him to be cast in a role that demands a range beyond awkward to sad-awkward to sexy-awkward (ugh) to disgustingly-sweet-awkward, but I honestly think this movie is about as close as it's gotten to something new. And sure, the plot's very condensed, but they handled the fights really, really well and it did not drag on even once. If you absolutely can't get past your own petty issues with an actor, don't bother to judge. Just say "I dislike Michael Cera so much that I won't even try to appreciate this film," and move on. Good god.
Also, Bob isn't saying it's the second coming of Christ. He's saying that it's probably going to be a serious gateway for video game tropes in films to come, maybe for a long time. I agree and I'm excited. And since when is number five in the box office several weeks after release not pretty good? Are you trying to say any movie is worthless unless it's number one for the entire summer and makes 100 times what it cost to make? It wasn't trying to be just Triple A, it was trying to be a great film with production values, and it succeeded. People like you put it where it is, and maybe its marketing campaign had a hand in it, too, because the ads did not do it any sort of justice. Nevertheless, Scott Pilgrim is going to be influential to somebody out there with a budget, just like every other risky film that catches on even a little bit. Too bad, so sad, go bash it on Rotten Tomatoes if you for some very worrying reason can't contain your rage about teen fads, originality, and fun.
If you can't tell, this movie blew me the hell away. I was not at all expecting it to be as incredible as it was. The camera, the effects, the transitions, and pretty much everything else was really out there, and combined in fresh ways that made the whole thing a very fun ride. Anyone who hasn't seen it, do yourself a favor and watch it while it's still in theaters.
I doubt any of you bothered to see the film, lest you suffer the almighty awkward of Cera. To be honest, while he tried his very best to be grating, the character was written with bold decisions that really made him likable. If you can't see past one goddamn actor and just start slamming the movie left and right for little things you quite probably only read about on the internet because you never actually saw the damn thing, and then you come here of all places to blab about how awful the movie is when it was the most inspired and risky film I've seen in a decade, and beautifully executed on top of that, you're a cretin and a moron, bottom line, no denying it. You know who else in Hollywood has one thing they bring to every single movie they're in? EVERYBODY. Morgan Freeman, John Travolta, Edward Norton, Woody Harrelson, Clint "I Am Movies" Eastwood, pick anyone. Get the hell over it, it's not going away until Cera gets older. It isn't time for him to be cast in a role that demands a range beyond awkward to sad-awkward to sexy-awkward (ugh) to disgustingly-sweet-awkward, but I honestly think this movie is about as close as it's gotten to something new. And sure, the plot's very condensed, but they handled the fights really, really well and it did not drag on even once. If you absolutely can't get past your own petty issues with an actor, don't bother to judge. Just say "I dislike Michael Cera so much that I won't even try to appreciate this film," and move on. Good god.
Also, Bob isn't saying it's the second coming of Christ. He's saying that it's probably going to be a serious gateway for video game tropes in films to come, maybe for a long time. I agree and I'm excited. And since when is number five in the box office several weeks after release not pretty good? Are you trying to say any movie is worthless unless it's number one for the entire summer and makes 100 times what it cost to make? It wasn't trying to be just Triple A, it was trying to be a great film with production values, and it succeeded. People like you put it where it is, and maybe its marketing campaign had a hand in it, too, because the ads did not do it any sort of justice. Nevertheless, Scott Pilgrim is going to be influential to somebody out there with a budget, just like every other risky film that catches on even a little bit. Too bad, so sad, go bash it on Rotten Tomatoes if you for some very worrying reason can't contain your rage about teen fads, originality, and fun.
If you can't tell, this movie blew me the hell away. I was not at all expecting it to be as incredible as it was. The camera, the effects, the transitions, and pretty much everything else was really out there, and combined in fresh ways that made the whole thing a very fun ride. Anyone who hasn't seen it, do yourself a favor and watch it while it's still in theaters.
I saw it, and disagree that this is in any way a sign of videogames becoming a part of some kind of "new wave" of movies. Scott Pilgrim is a poor analysis of what it's like being a 20-something nerd in love, and thoroughly perpetuates the existing depiction of romance in film.
First off, Scott isn't a nerd - he's an awkward loser in a hipster band. Yes, he makes videogame references, but there is no sign of intellect or driving ambition that nerds have. Mainstream media has confused the term 'nerd', even as far back as Hackers. It isn't cool to be one, yet they slap the big 'nerd' sticker on because it's the cool thing to do. That is itself what makes a hipster - defining a world around what's 'cool' or 'hip'. Videogames, comic books, and computers have been in the limelight since before TRON. Liking these things does not make you a nerd, geek, dork, etc. - liking them in favor of pretty much everything else does. Scott Pilgrim clearly likes playing music and girls WAY more than any of his 'nerdy' interests.
Second, the whole 'girls are something you have to fight for' idea is nothing new. Taking this literally certainly made for a visually interesting film, but about halfway through every battle I found myself wondering when they'd get to the fucking point. I'm sure the style will be copied, poorly, but the love story is where this movie fell flat. Scott Pilgrim is a movie that deserved some attention, but it's an arthouse flick poured into a blockbuster mold.
Finally, the depiction of women in this world is misogynist pandering. I know it's weird to say that as a man that regularly objectifies women (hey ladies!), but it's like being hit upside the head with a 'women are stupid' stick for 2 hours. They're all either hopelessly in love with a guy that doesn't really care about them, or hopelessly bitchy. I spent the whole movie expecting Ramona to start fighting her own battles, but the moment of redemption never came. I'm sure the comic handles this much better, but I don't think the movie can be used as some kind of record of 'what romance was like for 20-somethings in 2010'.
When the supporting cast is more interesting than the main characters, there's something very wrong with your movie. Sorry Edgar Wright, I wanted to like this. I'll still watch your next movie, but you seriously lost the game this time.
First off, Scott isn't a nerd - he's an awkward loser in a hipster band. Yes, he makes videogame references, but there is no sign of intellect or driving ambition that nerds have. Mainstream media has confused the term 'nerd', even as far back as Hackers. It isn't cool to be one, yet they slap the big 'nerd' sticker on because it's the cool thing to do. That is itself what makes a hipster - defining a world around what's 'cool' or 'hip'. Videogames, comic books, and computers have been in the limelight since before TRON. Liking these things does not make you a nerd, geek, dork, etc. - liking them in favor of pretty much everything else does. Scott Pilgrim clearly likes playing music and girls WAY more than any of his 'nerdy' interests.
Second, the whole 'girls are something you have to fight for' idea is nothing new. Taking this literally certainly made for a visually interesting film, but about halfway through every battle I found myself wondering when they'd get to the fucking point. I'm sure the style will be copied, poorly, but the love story is where this movie fell flat. Scott Pilgrim is a movie that deserved some attention, but it's an arthouse flick poured into a blockbuster mold.
Finally, the depiction of women in this world is misogynist pandering. I know it's weird to say that as a man that regularly objectifies women (hey ladies!), but it's like being hit upside the head with a 'women are stupid' stick for 2 hours. They're all either hopelessly in love with a guy that doesn't really care about them, or hopelessly bitchy. I spent the whole movie expecting Ramona to start fighting her own battles, but the moment of redemption never came. I'm sure the comic handles this much better, but I don't think the movie can be used as some kind of record of 'what romance was like for 20-somethings in 2010'.
When the supporting cast is more interesting than the main characters, there's something very wrong with your movie. Sorry Edgar Wright, I wanted to like this. I'll still watch your next movie, but you seriously lost the game this time.
It might've, except that Scott Pilgrim was crap.
EDIT: I like Michael Cera movies, recently I've been watching his entire career through Netflix. I just thought this one was poorly written and poorly directed.
EDIT: I like Michael Cera movies, recently I've been watching his entire career through Netflix. I just thought this one was poorly written and poorly directed.