Goodness. This is rather like reading American Psycho and coming away with the perception that Patrick Bateman was portrayed as Citizen of the Year. Your interpretation of Scott is SO far from how he was actually portrayed I honestly don't know how to respond to this.Guitarmasterx7 said:I had the complete opposite experience. Loved the movie, checked out the books, and they seriously seem like they were written by a fucking middle schooler. In the movie you get the vibe that you aren't really supposed to like scott, and nobody else really seems to like him all that much either, so even though the character is naive and obnoxious it feels like it's playing into a joke. In the books all the girls want to ride Scott's bologna pony and everyone but scott is gay, probably for scott. There's even a plotline where scott wrestles personal guilt over the fact that he's a muffin-level stud there's not enough of him to go around. The level of irony that made the character likable in the movie isn't there.
Yes, he's something of an accidental ladykiller in the books. He's charming and feckless. He's also an immature, narcissistic jerk and a completely unreliable narrator. Michael Cera's trademark gormless awkwardness and nebbishy hangdog appearance was a complete departure from his character. I'm having trouble thinking of an equivalent miscast. Maybe Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Loras Tyrell, or something. I dunno.
This is part of the patter of the books. Ironically (in light of your complaint), much of it is brought across to the film verbatim, only the film fucks up the pacing and delivery. I'm not sure whether to blame this on Wright, or whether to attribute it to attempting to translate one medium into another and ending up with deadpan coming across as wooden.Guitarmasterx7 said:Also there's this really bizarre almost autistic fascination with certain trivial petty details. For example I remember they kept bringing up scott wearing sweatbands on his arms for no reason. It didn't go anywhere and it didn't build character or anything, they were just regular ass conversations, like "why do you wear those," "I dont know I kinda like em" type shit. And then they'd have another conversation later on like "I thought you were gonna stop wearing those" "oh, I guess I forgot."
What they ended up with was a vapid, painfully unfunny blow-by-blow of all Scott Pilgrim's superficial details (the video game/pop culture in jokes, the super powers and fight scenes, the laconic humor) and utterly missed the theme/plot. For fucks sake, the original draft for the film had him going back to fucking KNIVES, whom Wright has an inexplicable hard-on for. I can't even put into words how stupid that would've been.Guitarmasterx7 said:They definitely gutted it but I think it sort of needed to be gutted. Though I guess with source material it doesn't matter. If people are drawn to it and you go a different direction with it, the same crowd might not have the same reaction.