Scott Pilgrim gets dominated.

[wrecker77]

Friends, I bring terrible news. And the worst part is, you probably already know on the inside.

Friday, Scott Pilgrim and The Expendables opened, and Scott Pilgrim got DESTROYED. The Expendables grossed around $35 million, while Scott Pilgrim was took in around $10.5 million.

The most crushing news of all is that it apparently took $60 million to produce.

This CANNOT end well.

And I honestly don't see the appeal of the expendables. Yeah all the great actors, but the movie itself looked sub par.

Its not fair... Now I know how Cabela feels...

 

[tomtom94]

And I honestly don't see the appeal of the expendables. Yeah all the great actors,

You just answered your own question

OT: I guess it's a combination of the Cera-haters and the fact it's going up against a film with an amazing cast (which, let's be honest, the "casuals" are more likely to want to see).

Ah well. I haven't seen either yet, I want to see both...but I need money.

 

[Yokai]

Noooooooooo!

I stand by my belief that Scott Pilgrim was the second best film this year after Inception, but honestly I'm not surprised. A movie full of retro video game references based off a small-time graphic novel doesn't really stand a chance against a movie with every action star ever in it, regardless of how awesome the former is and how terrible the latter.

I don't care though, I mark it as another success in Edgar Wright's perfect record. It was so great.

 

[Peteron]

So...? Expendables was bad, but Scott Pilgrim is about 4 times as bad. Some things should just stay comic books, and Michael Cera is a terrible actor.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Scott Pilgrim releases in the UK on August 25th and I have seen pretty much no worthwhile competition.

I'm seeing it day one anyway ;D

 

[SantoUno]

Many people must have thought it was a stupid, childish, concept. That's exactly what I thought when I saw the trailers.

Then some people suggested to me that it was actually a more interesting concept because it was based off the comic book which I never knew existed.

Who cares anyway? Just because it didn't make that much opening weekend doesn't mean it's going to stay that way.

 

[nunqual]

I didn't see what was so awesome about all this hype for this film. From what I saw it had a weak premise.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Meh.

Scott Pilgrims premise sounds horrible in my ears. I'm getting a lot of Spy Kids 3D vibes here!

The Expendables on the other hand was by far the best film this year.

 

[no oneder]

I just finished reading Scott's Vol. 6 and I really have to say this:

Spoiler

Spoiler: Big one

Spoiler: The biggest spoiler ever

Stephen Stills is gay!

As for the OT, I don't plan on seeing The Expendables until they apologize.

 

[wrecker77]

It releases in the UK on August 25th and I have seen pretty much no worthwhile competition.

I'm seeing it day one anyway ;D

Which one, Scott or the expendables?

Plus, as I've said: People are drugged monkeys who are easily entertained by random flashing coloured lights. That's the main reason The Expendables has made money at all.

Well, by that logic Scott pilgrim is really the same thing. Except Scott is done MUCH better, and with more substance.

 

[z121231211]

Plus, as I've said: People are drugged monkeys who are easily entertained by random flashing coloured lights. That's the main reason The Expendables has made money at all.

No offense to Scott Pilgrim, but I'm sure it had at least 3x as much flashing coloured lights as The Expendables.

 

[JWW]

Seems like you could use a button [http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/]

But seriously, I'm not shocked at all. The actors in the expendables are extremely good at what they do (action movies), and getting them all together is a guarantee for (financial) success.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

It releases in the UK on August 25th and I have seen pretty much no worthwhile competition.

I'm seeing it day one anyway ;D

Which one, Scott or the expendables?

Scott Pilgrim.

I'll edit my post to clarify.

 

[dfphetteplace]

I have zero interest in either movie. The Expendables is just retarded looking, but Scott Pilgrim isn't any better. It just looks like a bunch of boring teenage romance crap served up with a lot of flash. I don't have time for that crap.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Don't plan on seeing either to soon but Scott Pilgrim looked ridiculously bad in all the trailers and adverts I've seen for it.

 

[PeterDawson]

Not a giant shocker. Scott Pilgrim was a giant risk because of how crazy it is, and while it appeals to gamers and anime fans alike, Expendables appeals to people who grew up watching movies featuring guys like Stallone, Lundgren, Li and Statham, nevermind who else is in it. To turn this into a sexual competition, its a nerd boner versus a man boner.

Oh yeah, and the Expendables was fairly enjoyable. Had some blatant camera problems and the script while decent wasn't brilliant, but what were you expecting? Lundgren fighting Li was in of itself worth the price of admission. Granted Scott Pilgrim sold itself with its custom Universal Pictures logo...

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Oh dear what a shame how very awful that a bad film didn't make money.

It's probably because the target audience are too "hip" to go to the cinema.

It's twilight for guys and most of the people squeeling over it are displaying the same level of obnoxiousness they deride in fans of those films.

 

[shogunblade]

Noooooooooo!

I stand by my belief that Scott Pilgrim was the second best film this year after Inception, but honestly I'm not surprised. A movie full of retro video game references based off a small-time graphic novel doesn't really stand a chance against a movie with every action star ever in it, regardless of how awesome the former is and how terrible the latter.

I don't care though, I mark it as another success in Edgar Wright's perfect record. It was so great.

The lack of Samuel Jackson automatically renders the main selling point of The Expendables invalid.

I think we should all go see Scott Pilgrim. Right now.

Plus, as I've said: People are drugged monkeys who are easily entertained by random flashing coloured lights. That's the main reason The Expendables has made money at all.

Actually, I think "Scott Pilgrim" has more flashy colored lights than the "Expendables" explosions, blood and gun shots.

So in reality, the drugged monkeys didn't want epilepsy and went to "Sylvester Stallone presents Michael Bay's 'Explosions!'".

Does it really matter? I'd go see both, really.

 

[Axolotl]

What the large budget action film staring some of the most well known actors today outperformed a film aimed purely at uber-hardcore video game/comic/manga/anime nerds? Who could have possibly guessed?

I plan to see both on the opening day, The Expendables didn't dissapoint and I doubt Scott Pilgrim will either.

 

[Eggsnham]

I honestly didn't see the appeal of either movie.

Whoo. An awkward kid played by Michael Cera (again) who meets a beautiful girl who's undoubtedly out of his proverbial league and somehow convinces her to be in a relationship with him by using his charmingly awkward social skills (again).

But the twist is that there's music and superpowers involved. And fighting.

Whooptedy dee. A movie with all of the action movie actors from the eighties and nineties about blowing stuff up and killing dudes. Again.

Really, I don't see the "wow" factor of either movies, maybe I'm just being ignorant with a huge pine-cone up my ass, but I seriously don't see the appeal.