It is a romantic story with jokes. Comic-book based or not, it certainly has plenty in common with the romcom genre. I don't see how it draws all its ideas from games since games aren't generally built around romances that are anything like what takes place in the film.Gamerforlife wrote: It's not a romantic comedy that draws some ideas from games. It draws ALL of its ideas from games and frankly, the movie avoids a lot of romcom cliches. It's probably more accurately a comic book movie. A comic book that happens to be all about video games
If, like me, you don't see this film as taking place in a "video game world" then all the video game references were shoehorned in. If this was a video game world, then is Scott playing in it? Are we playing it? Are we just watching a game unfold? You are starting to get to some of my problem with the plot - the world is never fully realized - it is sort of a real world scenario AND a game world scenario all at the same time and it just doesn't work well. The 1UP isn't something he gets by hitting a mushroom or reaching a certain score, it is something he gets by deciding he's going to fight for what he wants. That's not how you get a one-up in any game I know.What's wrong with the 1up? How is that shoehorned in? The guy died, so he used a 1up for an extra life.
Frankly I think that you calling me harsh is itself harsh. Let's leave personal insults out of this. I didn't say I can't root for someone with no self esteem or who is flawed, I said I can't root for someone with ZERO redeeming qualities. Pilgrim has none, or at least none that Cera could convey.And yes, you ARE a harsh person. The whole paragraph saying you aren't actually shows that you are. You hated him from the get go? Because he's not a perfect, flawless protaganist with loads of self esteem and charm? Frankly, the whole storyline wouldn't have worked if he was.
I didn't say it was a BIG Hollywood production or that it was a "sure thing," I said it is a typical Hollywood film that targets a set demographic. Twilight is an example, as are many horror films or any number of those silly parody films. They aren't made for everyone, but they are made with the hope that they'll make money with a certain demographic that eats that shit up. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.Big Hollywood productions are usually based on a "sure thing" which a movie as odd as Scott Pilgrim certainly wasn't.
I disagree here. It is hard not to watch the film and know almost everything that's about to happen next.It doesn't follow any recognizable formula at all.
And no, there aren't any big actors. I'm sorry but unless we're talking Brad Pitts, Angelina Jolies, Ben Afflecks, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bales, etc. than we're not talking big name actors. Scott Pilgrim's actors are are B level actors, which is typical with Edgar Wright movies.
I agree that it isn't typical Hollywood fare, but that doesn't mean it is indie or original. Cera reportedly made $4 million, and the cast as a whole made upwards of $25-$30 million. That's not an indie movie.Despite production costs, it's got indie written all over it as most Hollywood movies aren't this original and quirky. The average comic book blockbuster is more much formulaic than Scott Pilgrim was and makes for an easier sell to a Hollywood exec. I could say the same about your average romcom
If it were more convincingly a video game world, maybe these things could work. But the narrative, settings, and characters are not largely like those you would find in a video game, so it doesn't.And again, your criticisms of the CGI, effects, etc. don't make sense. Video games are primarily a visual based medium. Moreso than movies. Any game set in a video game world rather than a realistic setting is going to have lots of that stuff. Also, as I often point out on this forum, most games exist in a bizzaro world that is completely unlike reality in any way. The so called "pointless" CGI and effects, as well as the so-called "shoehorned" in things like the 1up and pee meter all serve to reinforce that. I just don't see how any gamer doesn't get that. They should get it moreso than the nongamers watching
I can appreciate plenty of things that get labeled "hipster", but this movie wrongly wears that tag. It isn't smart - one glance at the writing alone should prove that. It isn't quirky or original, it is manufactured nerdcore-bait that certain audiences will eat up as they are expected to. I am sure Universal is just upset that that audience wasn't as big as they estimated.And Scott Pilgrim is the ONLY movie about games I have seen done well, because it acknowledges how ludicrous many of them are and plays with that idea. It's a very smart and self aware movie, which like a lot of smart things in our culture today gets quickly labelled, "hipster" and frowned upon
Look, I can see how people have a different view of this film than I do, and I certainly don't mean to say you can't enjoy it on its own merits (regardless of whether I see them or not). But I can't abide some statements about the originality, sincerity, etc. of the film without saying something. The film tries oh so painfully hard to be something that it is not, and that for me is unforgivable.And I certainly respect your film knowledge, but it doesn't mean you're always right. I see people everyday who are supposedly experts in their field and still don't get a lot of things
