The Big Picture: The Numbers

[fozzy360]

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

This. To any non-gamer, non-geek the movie was terrible. No matter what geeks think, making Scott Pilgrim was a bad decision on Universal's part.

MovieBob's argument boils down to "most people don't like the movies I do, so movies I like aren't made as often BAWWW".

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

WE GET IT, BOB! You don't like the Expendables. But stop blaming it for Scott Pilgrim's failure. Scott Pilgrim was a big budget movie that catered to a small, niche audience. The nerd crowd is not big enough to support an expensive movie (this is why super hero movies tend to cater more towards a wider audience, and thus make more money). It didn't matter when it came out, or what it came out against, it was going to do poorly in the box office anyways.

I more or less agree with these sentiments. I didn't hate Scott Pilgrim, but I really didn't like it either. For me it was completely forgettable, but maybe because it just wasn't my thing.

But Universal should have known exactly what they were getting into. The amount of geeks that will run and see their favorite games or comics translated into films is far exceeded by the sheer amount of people in the casual movie going audience, i.e. the folks that just want to sit down and enjoy a movie when they can. On top of that, being careful with money is a two-way thing. The audience is also going to be careful, especially nowadays, with how they spend their money at the movies. Are they going to see a comic-based film with unfamiliar actors with a look that panders to a very small audience, or are they going to see an action film full or familiar faces? One of these will be more likely than the other to provide a guaranteed good time. It's sad, but it isn't totally black and white, either. It's not that the audience is too stupid to recognize the brilliance of Scott Pilgrim (though, there are times...), but it's more that the audience just doesn't see Scott Pilgrim as a film aimed at them.

 

[Plurralbles]

io was about to feel bad.. but fuck that, scott pilgrim was stupid.

 

[auronvi]

To everyone claiming this is proof of capitalism favoring the stupid and mentally diminished, I have one word:

Inception.

Original and thought provoking movies make money, but $85 million movies targeted to a exclusive, niche audience with an uncharismatic lead will never make their money back.

Inception was a great and thought provoking film. That isn't what the general public saw when they went to see it. When I would talk to my friends about it, they thought the action was good and the whole dream sequences thing a bit confusing. So that's it, they liked the action. As what was said above, people just want to escape their dreary lives for an hour or two and action is the easiest way to do it. I get into the psychology of the movie with average movie goers, most will just nod their head pretending to understand what I am talking about and add nothing to the conversation. WHY DON'T PEOPLE LIKE THINKING!

I am coming off as an elitist jerk it seems. Oh well...

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Scott Pilgrim cost $85 million? US dollars? Where the hell did the money go? The effects were okay, the action sequences were okay, the level of star power was okay, and it was shot in Canada (probably cheaper). Outside of the seven fights and maybe one or two blue screened dream sequences, that was a predominantly dialog driven movie.

 

[Inkidu]

You know, I'm a gamer, but I don't think games make good movies. You can flame me all you want, but games are in their nature interactive media, and if you make a movie it suddenly becomes infinitely non-interactive. So, yeah, when Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World came out. I didn't go watch it. I didn't want to see a movie set up like a video game. To me it smacked of pandering to that image that gamers are nothing but nerds who salivate at the idea of a movie made just for them, but you know what I did go see in theaters? Iron Man. Go figure. All movies are pandering to one crowd or another, all movies are cash ins. All your quote, artistic, daring, new movies unquote, are typically saved for esoteric film festivals.

It just depends on what you want to be treated to when you go.

Also, I love Lovecraft and I think his work should stay out of film. His horror relies so heavily on the imagination that it would simply ruin it to have some kind of arbitrary alien set up by some director (no matter how awesome he might be) would simply spoil all things H.P. Lovecraft.

 

[fundayz]

The problem isn't the different content of the two movies (Cause it's kinda hard to get any more different) it's the fact that because Scott Pilgrim, a high risk project, got crushed at the box office by a bland, unoriginal waste of time, Universal didn't want to risk the kind of money on Mountains, even though it would've been a MASSIVE hit, hell even you don't even need to be a Lovecraft fan to see that. But since they were dealing with a director who isn't exactly a big ticket name, with source material unfamiliar to a lot of people, and an actor who isn't exactly popular at the moment, they saw it as a risk and didn't go for it (At least that's the way it looks to me).

Scott Pilgrim was NOT risky, its audience was near-guaranteed to see it and like it. The problem was that it's target audience was too small.

Scott Pilgrim was a geek-niche movie that, unsurprisingly, got owned by releasing at the same time as an action movie jam-packed with the biggest action stars of the last 3 decades.

Mountains would have been completely different, and I highly doubt that it got canned because of the risk associated with Scott Pilgrim rather than simply because Universal made bad decisions and lost the safety net needed to make innovative movies.

If anything, people should be complaining AGAINST making niche movies that do not have a real chance so that big movie studies can focus on innovative movies that a WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE CAN ENJOY.

 

[Daniel Floyd]

That was a stellar episode. Well said, Bob.

 

[B Goy]

To me the reason Scott Pilgrim failed was the same reason that Kickass failed.

They were advertising films that weren't going to happen.

If you never read Kickass and only saw the trailer then you'd think it was just a comedy on some guy who tries to be a superhero, isn't that good but internet memehood inspires others to take up the mantle as he then gets better and eventually all the heroes team up to face the bad guy with the little girl and dad being the best ones even if no one takes them seriously.

Kickass was alright but it wasn't the film the non-geeks were promised, the general public looked it up and realised it wasn't their cup of tea after they realised the film was going to stay true, they wanted wacky comedy, not dark comedy that abandons comedy by the third act with the torture scene (seriously... why? it's marketing hell). It failed.

Scott Pilgrim also was advertised as just comedy until the above scenario happened.

Basically if people want to make movies like Kickass and Scott Pilgrim then they need to ditch the dark and drama and only make it a spoof of the genre or just comedy if they want the Hollywood cash flowing in.

Sad? Yes. Necessary? Also yes.

Kick Ass was a finincial success. From what i understand they had pretty much already covered their budget before the film even hit theaters

Ah, my mistake but the point still stands with Scotty P.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

i wish i could put this video on EVERY screen in the entire world so EVERYONE can see their idiocracy and repent so good movies can be made

 

[DeepwellBridge]

Great vid Bob. I'll take your low-brow, no nonsense movie reviews over the stagnant, pompous critics of the world any day.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Would have loved to see it by I see where the univ was goin with it. No way Lovecraft rated R was goin to make money.
Its sad really when great works of art get pwned by dumb car movie number 393042....

 

[Verlander]

THANK YOU.

About time someone said it in an easy to sallow, and easily represented kinda way. For pirates, this goes double

 

[head desk tricycle]

Hellboy 2 was terrible though, and the first Hellboy was merely adequate, having been partially redeemed by a strong final act. If I'm not mistaken, Guillermo also made Blade 2, which was great in a way very comparable to Expendables, to the point that it even contained some enjoyable elements of pro wrestling.

 

[Yelchor]

The "At the Mountains of Madness" film adaptation was cancelled?

...That was a sudden gut-wrenching disappointment. On a brighter note however, Iv'e gained a slight increase of respect for Universal Pictures for their support of free artistic value. What's interesting about this is that it isn't the fault of the publisher as in most cases, but the audience itself.

Infact, why can't Moviebob do a Big Picture episode contemplating on how the mainstream audience let bland action movies become huge hits with emphasis on artistic value being gone from sight? Doesn't people realize that they contribute to this negative spiral by watching such movies?

This is quite a depressing trend which, the way I see it, is caused by the dependency on money. It has turned movie-making into a balancing game between artistic commitment and accessibility to as large an audience as possible. It has become an industry where creativity is more of a bonus rather than obligatory. Movies, as any other form of art, should not be about that. It's about expression, relaying of messages that can have the ability to enrich your mentality.

I'll atleast hope for better days.

 

[WaderiAAA]

Wow, that is really depressing. Particularly considering just how good Scott Pilgrim was and how awesome that Lovecraft movie sounds.

 

[jrplette]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one depressed by this vid. Good vid, but depressing. Makes me remember how we live in an imperfect world and stuff...I need something mindless to distract me.

To the Expendables!!

 

[Dastardly]

The Numbers

How Scott Pilgrim ruined Guillermo del Toro's day.

Watch Video

When art meets commerce, it's the inevitable outcome. Commerce will dominate, because artists can't eat without money. The classic paradox.

We're told to "get a job doing what you love." Or, in less artful terms, "If you're good at something, never do it for free." But the fact is that accepting money for your craft irreparably changes the motivation for all but a select few (usually those who didn't have to worry much about money anyway). And it introduces myriad other influences outside the medium itself.

Artists are no longer allowed to help teach people how to engage art. They are only allowed to capitalize on the dependable old tropes to which people are already enslaved. In turn, we propagate that enslavement into the next generation.

 

[Tales of Golden Sun]

I REALLY want to see that lovecraftian movie.

EDIT=correcting a spelling error

 

[PeterDawson]

Yeah it sucks that the pandering film The Expendables (not that pandering isn't a bad thing mind you, one could argue chocolate is just pandering to our taste-buds) killed a wonderful artistic film at the box office. However, the tragedy is kind of undercut by the studio really not thinking about their release dates. Seriously, it went opposite Eat Pray Love and The Expendables, two massively-hyped movies that had a giant amount of appeal to two huge demographics. Yeah Scott Pilgrim was the most creative at least artistically of the three and, unlike the action film Hollywood had to make in case the world will actually end in 2012 (I'm surprised the tagline wasnt "You're welcome America"), actually had good camera work, but it just doesn't have the broad appeal that those two films had just in concept. Hell I myself went to see both Pilgrim and The Expendables and enjoyed both, though in my book the former was definitely superior. The summer blockbuster months can be risky and you can't bank on the geek audience no matter how big and influencial you think it is, especially going up against two films that are all but guaranteed to be juggernauts.

 

[WanderingFool]

Infact, why can't Moviebob do a Big Picture episode contemplating on how the mainstream audience let bland action movies become huge hits with emphasis on artistic value being gone from sight? Doesn't people realize that they contribute to this negative spiral by watching such movies?

Oh God... Im quite sure the last thing any of us need is Bob making a video that basically sums up to, "If you have different tastes than me, you're a moron!"