City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Scott Pilgrim vs.... The Expendables?

Acemace

By Acemace,
Posted on: 2010-08-05 22:01 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoNuff View Post
Expendibles was my choice, and it didn't let me down. I might.. see that dressed up love story.. i think thats what prevents me from being super enthused by it since I don't have an inclination for love story viewing. I mean the geek factor of paranormally powered beings look ok.... but a "love story"
I dunno, to me this is a love story by way of no more heroes. I dont go out to movies much(our local theaters are not great) but i suspect the nmh quality will pull me in.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post
My wife loves chick flicks, and this didn't satisfy her quotient for one. She didn't view it as such at all. I mean, he tells her "I'm in lesbian with you," and only later realizes that he meant the "other forbidden "L" word."

See it, man. You'll dig it.
Anybody who thinks this is a chick flick needs to hand in their gamer geek card.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy_Amp View Post
I'm willing to bet SP was the better movie.
You would be wrong.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraTroll View Post
You would be wrong.
Please tell me in the wealth of reviews via critics and people here were you are getting that idea from? Hell, SP has a thread here with more posts in it and even on PU there is no Expendables thread while there is a SP one. Granted, being well written isn't the point of Expendables, but at least it's one thing I can say about SP that you can't for Expendables. Hell, even in the first review here the person described Expendables as being "....weird."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraTroll View Post
Winner is announced: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/...points/?hpt=T2

Geek lost to Stallone and Manliness.
Hell Scott Pilgrim didn't even beat Inception, which is in it's 5th weekend now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy_Amp View Post
Please tell me in the wealth of reviews via critics and people here were you are getting that idea from? Hell, SP has a thread here with more posts in it and even on PU there is no Expendables thread while there is a SP one. Granted, being well written isn't the point of Expendables, but at least it's one thing I can say about SP that you can't for Expendables. Hell, even in the first review here the person described Expendables as being "....weird."
Ok, so some people who play CoH are posting a lot about Scott Pilgrim. I'd still bet money that a lot more players went to see The Expendables and just aren't being so vocal about it, especially as people tend to post more to complain about a film than about how much they liked it. Personally, I don't think I'll be missing much if I never see Scott Pilgrim, the trailer didn't get my attention much either. On the other hand I probably would have seen The Expendables even if it didn't have such a star-studded cast, although that cast certainly closed the deal.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy_Amp View Post
I'm willing to bet SP was the better movie.
I saw both the same day (Friday) and Scott Pilgrim was by far better than The Expendables. It wasn't even a contest. The Expenables was exactly what I knew it would be: Completely stupid, mindless action. It did not disapoint in that regard. And I did enjoy it. Because I do enjoy utterly retarded pointless action films. However, I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

Scott Pilgrim on the other hand was funnier, better written, more stylish, and I actually preferred the action scenes in Scott Pilgrim to the ones in The Expendables as Scott Pilgrim's action scenes were original, hilarious, and pretty intense at times. Scott Pilgrim was over all a better shot, written and performed film than The Expendables. I'll buy Scott Pilgrim when it comes out and probably go see it again in theatres. The Expendables? There's a good chance I'll never watch it again. Why? Because it's every 80's action film ever made and I've already seen that a thousand times.

Don't get me wrong: I liked The Expendables. It was absolutely horrible and I knew it would be going in. And expecting it to be a complete piece of **** film with a lot of senseless violence, I enjoyed it. That's what it was: A God awful piece of **** fun movie. It was good because it was so bad. If you want to watch a fun, bad action film utterly devoid of originality, then The Expendables is your movie.

Scott Pilgrim on the other hand, was you know, ACTUALLY GOOD.

 

Posted

i did a double feature on Friday starting with Scott Pilgrim Vs the world then on to The Expendibles.

in short. Scott Pilgrim was amazing. i will likely go see this again in the theater (something i NEVER do). i loved the writing, editing and pretty much everything about it.

The Expendibles was meh with only a few notable action sequences (Terry Tate being a high point), most of the movie felt like it was a string of cameos wrapped in a thin plot. and the ending ... urgh.

i was actually shocked that the Expendibles beat out Scott Pilgrim. well hopefully word of mouth will shift their places in all of this.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy_Amp View Post
Please tell me in the wealth of reviews via critics and people here were you are getting that idea from? Hell, SP has a thread here with more posts in it and even on PU there is no Expendables thread while there is a SP one. Granted, being well written isn't the point of Expendables, but at least it's one thing I can say about SP that you can't for Expendables. Hell, even in the first review here the person described Expendables as being "....weird."
I saw both. Scott Pilgrim was an okay comic book geek film. Hey I got the jokes and yes I did enjoy Scott Pilgrim but there were times in Scott Pilgrim it did drag or become just annoying. How many times did we have to hear the main character whining in this? My wife was bored she does not live and breath comics or played Street Fighter and the like for some of the humor in the movie. This was the film she wanted to see.

Expendables was a much better ride, I was never bored and I felt entertained. The movie was a complete throwback to the films I watched when I was a kid in the 1980's. It was an action thrill ride of good vs evil with complete @ss-kicking in the whole film. There was not a point in a film that it dragged or was not entertained. My wife was entertained and said to me: "We are owning this film." Stallone executed this film perfectly.

I saw Expendables twice over the weekend. I don't do that for movies and not in this economy either.

I don't give a damn what a critic says about a film. Most of them are either paid off by studios, pretentious failed screenwriters and/or have their heads up their holes to just enjoy a film. I base my opinions on what I see for myself and what some of my friends say.

When I saw Scott Pilgrim no one clapped at the end and some people complained how bad the film was leaving the theater. People clapped at the Expendables twice.

Argue all you want but geek on for Pilgrim if you get it but more people liked Expendables. How do we know? $$$ at the Box Office.

 

Posted

I saw Expendables Friday night. It was meh. The action was fine, if a bit over the top (which was to be expected of course), but the writing was really horrible. The story was just bad as was the dialog. If the movie had tried to take itself a bit less seriously, it would have been a lot better.

Not on my bother to own list. I may still see Pilgrim, or not. It's not really a pressing matter to me.

Too many alts to list.

 

Posted

On Thursday night our theater had a midnight showing of the Expendables, so we saw it then. Went to Scott Pilgrim on Friday.

Expendables was nothing more than an excuse to have aging action heroes fight one another...and I'm perfectly fine paying $8 a seat to watch that. It was exactly what I expected -- blood, explosions, and an almost complete lack of plot. Very satisfying movie. It delivered exactly what it promised.

Scott Pilgrim disappointed me. I was excited for it, but I thought the execution was poor. The director should have taken more effort to inform the audience that Scott Pilgrim essentially lived inside a video game world. That confused the people I took to the movie (my GF and four teenagers) until I explained it. Also, the director didn't seem to know how to put some parts of the comic into movie form, which is why he lapsed into comic book animation several times. The movie just didn't work, and I blame the director.

But I will say that the fight scenes in Scott Pilgrim were very good. Worthy of the Expendables, even. The director knew how to film those.

...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.

 

Posted

More people saw the Expendables.

More people say Scott Pilgrim is the better movie.

I don't think you can value a movie's worth simply on the viewers it attracts opening weekend.

I mean, we don't have to look very far: Hardly anyone plays City of Heroes these days. Is it a bad game?

More people own a Wii rather than a PS3 or a 360. Is the Wii better?

More people watch American Idol and CSI: Wherever the spin-off happens to be this week than they do the few spots of original programming on network, mainstream TV.

Just because the mainstream digs it, doesn't mean it's good.

So, Scott Pilgrim won't be making its money back in the U.S. unfortunately ($60 mill budget). Thankfully, they're turning out in droves in Canada, which is expected. The author, Bryan Lee O'Malley, is Canadian and has a big following. The film also takes place in Toronto, and I believe it was filmed there as well.

SP doesn't open in the UK until the 25th, where it should also make a sizable chunk due to director-allegiance to Wright.

But, going by America's sales figures, Expendables won the war of $$$.

I didn't expect Scott Pilgrim to make a ton of money, but I was hoping it could beat out the chick flick du jour of the week; Eat, Pray, Love; and was under the impression that, "Surely no one wants to see those washed-up 50+ year olds trying to recapture their youth" until I got a big dose of this forum. Myself, and the cirle I run in, aren't interested in generic action movies. There does have to be some manner of mental stimulation involved for me to enjoy a flick.

Thanks for eight fun years, Paragon.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post
More people saw the Expendables.

More people say Scott Pilgrim is the better movie.

I don't think you can value a movie's worth simply on the viewers it attracts opening weekend.

I mean, we don't have to look very far: Hardly anyone plays City of Heroes these days. Is it a bad game?

More people own a Wii rather than a PS3 or a 360. Is the Wii better?

More people watch American Idol and CSI: Wherever the spin-off happens to be this week than they do the few spots of original programming on network, mainstream TV.

Just because the mainstream digs it, doesn't mean it's good.

So, Scott Pilgrim won't be making its money back in the U.S. unfortunately ($60 mill budget). Thankfully, they're turning out in droves in Canada, which is expected. The author, Bryan Lee O'Malley, is Canadian and has a big following. The film also takes place in Toronto, and I believe it was filmed there as well.

SP doesn't open in the UK until the 25th, where it should also make a sizable chunk due to director-allegiance to Wright.

But, going by America's sales figures, Expendables won the war of $$$.

I didn't expect Scott Pilgrim to make a ton of money, but I was hoping it could beat out the chick flick du jour of the week; Eat, Pray, Love; and was under the impression that, "Surely no one wants to see those washed-up 50+ year olds trying to recapture their youth" until I got a big dose of this forum. Myself, and the cirle I run in, aren't interested in generic action movies. There does have to be some manner of mental stimulation involved for me to enjoy a flick.
Wait, let me get this straight. This seems to be a recurring theme for the Scott Pilgrim crowd here.

Scott Pilgrim did not make money so that makes it better? Huh? What? Is that not what the critics say to promote some lousy film that they only want to watch?

What we enjoy does not always mesh. I know people that hate Star Wars: A New Hope.

I saw both and Expendables to me was the better movie. I was more entertained and enjoyed it more than Scott Pilgrim.



We are all forgetting what the thread started by BlackArachnia is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
Well both movies launch on the same date. That's going to require some people to make some choices. Me?

Scott Pilgrim for me.

Yeah I know you can see both films in the theatre. The point is, most likely people will only see one that weekend. Which do you choose?
Well, the answer to the Question that started this all this is what we would see.

Expendables was the answer.

Hell, Expendables made $35 million being a rated R film its first week which is not bad this summer considering mostly family films dominated this year. Just thinking that is an amazing feat at this box office.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraTroll View Post
Hell, Expendables made $35 million being a rated R film its first week which is not bad this summer considering mostly family films dominated this year. Just thinking that is an amazing feat at this box office.
I may not like The Expendables but you do have a point and a mighty valid one.

Shadowy Presence - Absolutely, positively worse than playing a Kheldian... --Myrmydon

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Xmas View Post
Well you could have brought up Juno as well, it seems that there's a lot of hate there as well.
Juno also had Ellen Page to pick up Cera's considerable slack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post
More people saw the Expendables.

More people say Scott Pilgrim is the better movie.
I don't know about "the" better movie, but it seems to be getting better reviews on the whole. I did expect Pilgrim to do better than Expendables, tbh.

I saw Expendables, and while it was entertaining, it's an 80's action movie with 2010 special effects. The plot was average and the dialogue was rather hit and miss.

The biggest complaints I've seen about Scott Pilgrim revolve around Cera recycling his schtick and the movie being too stylized. One review even compared it to Speed Racer. Ouch.

I'll be curious to see how the movies do their second weekends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post
I don't think you can value a movie's worth simply on the viewers it attracts opening weekend.
Oh I agree, but Hollywood sure loves its opening weekends.

Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.

good luck D.B.B.

 

Posted

Well, Titanic made more money than Raiders of the Lost Arc so I guess Titanic is the better film.

Personally, I didn't think so, but I guess I'm wrong. Titanic made more money, so it doesn't matter what I think: It is a better movie.

I mean, it made more money! So it has to be better!

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeNeSaisQuoi View Post
Well, Titanic made more money than Raiders of the Lost Arc so I guess Titanic is the better film.

Personally, I didn't think so, but I guess I'm wrong. Titanic made more money, so it doesn't matter what I think: It is a better movie.

I mean, it made more money! So it has to be better!
This is the theory that Hollywood budgeting and finance departments operate on.




-np

I see myself as witty, urbane, highly talented, hugely successful with a keen sense of style. Plus of course my own special brand of modesty.

Virtue: Automatic Lenin | The Pink Guy | Superpowered | Guardia | Guardia Prime | Ultrapowered

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraTroll View Post
Wait, let me get this straight. This seems to be a recurring theme for the Scott Pilgrim crowd here.

Scott Pilgrim did not make money so that makes it better? Huh? What? Is that not what the critics say to promote some lousy film that they only want to watch?
Critics are just people that are paid to watch and talk about movies. They have seen more, and it is their job to enjoy them. I've never shrugged off a critic's opinion. I may not always agree with it (and there are still quite a few negative criticisms against SP I can disagree with), but I can still respect their stance and am willing to hear them out.

My stance on saying it is a better movie is for the more nuanced things it can do for the entire industry. If the movie does well enough, it could mean more adaptations to niche properties in the future, which I'm on board for.

I think the movie also did more for "cinema" than the Expendables. Scott Pilgrim tried a lot of new things in its presentations. The Expendables was unabashedly a movie that could have been made 20 years ago.

Quote:
What we enjoy does not always mesh. I know people that hate Star Wars: A New Hope.

I saw both and Expendables to me was the better movie. I was more entertained and enjoyed it more than Scott Pilgrim.

We are all forgetting what the thread started by BlackArachnia is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
Well both movies launch on the same date. That's going to require some people to make some choices. Me?

Scott Pilgrim for me.

Yeah I know you can see both films in the theatre. The point is, most likely people will only see one that weekend. Which do you choose?
Well, the answer to the Question that started this all this is what we would see.

Expendables was the answer.

Hell, Expendables made $35 million being a rated R film its first week which is not bad this summer considering mostly family films dominated this year. Just thinking that is an amazing feat at this box office.
Good point regarding the OP. But most will go on the broad thread title alone, which is why a lot of these debates have carried on for pages now.

Thanks for eight fun years, Paragon.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innovator View Post
Rottentomatoes rating would disagree with you:

81% Scott Pilgrim Vs the World

42% The Expendables
I forgot that RotenTomatoes (and other critics) are responsible for the revenues a movie generates.

Oh wait, they're not!

Do people like to watch crap? That's subjective. Personally, I'm not biased towards either film (not itching to see either, but wouldn't turn down a ticket for either).

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake View Post
ok chris, i'm beginning to think you are starting to take this way too personally.
I'm beginning to think he *is* Michael Cera.

Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2

 

Posted

I could never rock that curly hair.

I'm taking it personally in the sense that it's a property (book, game, movie) that I really enjoy and would like others to at least give it a chance. My biggest motivator in many of my responses begins with being purely baffled that people on a videogame board aren't at least interested in what has been called the most effective videogame movie ever made.

Thanks for eight fun years, Paragon.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy_Amp View Post
We have a winner. Cera is doing nothing to help promote this movie in terms of star power versus Expendables has a who's who list of action stars. Expendables also comes across as being, "Dude, we got to see it" regardless of how bad it was versus SP being a rental type movie no matter how good it was.

Yeah, NO. I saw Scott Pilgrim, and let me tell you, FANTASTIC flick. I haven't seen a movie that good AND entertaining in a long while... Toy Story 3 notwithstanding.

As for seeing Stallone angrily mutter his old *** through an unfunny explosionfest, no thanks.

Little B-C-lister Danny Trejo will take Machete and wipe the floor with Rocky.

Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued

"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque