SpiderJerusalem said:
Jumplion said:
If you hated Scott Pilgrim, whatever, that's your opinion. But you cannot deny that it is a unique movie
Actually, you can, or well, I can. It did nothing that Japanese, Korean and Chinese films haven't been doing for DECADES, stuff that Wright just lifted - and wasn't even the first to do the lifting - and put into the film. It filled plot and characterization with nodnodwinkwink juks at the audience and with insane amounts of re-hashed-retro-funnies that could never open up to an audience outside of the very, very small circles that eventually saw it.
I don't think that's quite fair to bring in another culture in here as we're primarily talking about the American side of the cinema. My point wasn't exactly "it hasn't been done before!" but that, in American (and somewhat European, as well) cinema, Scott Pilgrim was extremely unique and standout compared to The Expendables. It's like, yeah, sure, you can say that both Pilgrim and Expendables are wholly unoriginal, but at least we haven't seen something like Scott Pilgrim for a while. We see Expendables type movies all the time, every darn summer.
Darmani said:
No the problem is, as others have said, Scott Pilgrim was a another mangeek romantic comedy loaded with too specific appeal (indie music, canadian hipsters, on lowincome having house parties and torn between two girls, after dating a third who is being ***** about it, they have no deep and respectful ties with) and video gamey special effects. I'm 30 and not that much in the dating scene. I am not in the emotional or personal tier of Scott and his "friends." Even when I rented it it just came off ... flat. Not Cera's fault, per se, but still I just wasn't into it and the film depends on you being into it, on a level (likely reliving or recognizing your own 18-20something romantic misadventures and how..uncool they were)
Firstly, if you're going to talk about Scott Pilgrim, quote the paragraph where I talked about Pilgrim, otherwise I don't know if you got my initial point my point.
Secondly, while I did enjoy Scott Pilgrim, I am admittedly pretty much on the same boat with you. I enjoyed it for what it was, and its appeal was geared to a very specific audience. I am nowhere near the fanboyness that Bob is with the movie, but I did like it a helluvah lot more than I did The Expendables.
But that's not exactly the point I wanted to make (at least, I didn't think I made it). You can easily analyze anything to where it's not "unique", "original", or "good". My main point, that upon retrospect was probably not clear enough, is that compared to The Expendables, and compared to many Expendable-esque movies, Scott Pilgrim deserved far more attention than it got because it's at least
trying to stand out.
Stallone, Li, etc just goofing around on camera and having a badass unrepetant action movie sounds REALLY REALLY REALLY awesome. Like Snakes on a Plane awesome, only ya know it worked, somehow.
I won't lie and say that doesn't sound awesome. It does. It's just...well...it's been done, ya know? We get these kinds of movies every summer, and while I'm all for the occasional 'splosion fest, enjoy the pretty lights, kind of movies, it gets kind of old after a while, doesn't it?
Scott Pilgrim is Twilight for 20-30 something manboys.
Eh, wouldn't go quite that far.