And this is why we can't have nice things
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-09-03 14:51 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Meh, even if a movie doesn't do all that well in terms of box office, I find it is worth it just to make it so long as the movie is actually good. It may not feel like it was worthwhile to the studios, but at least down the line people will be able to look back and remember it for being a good movie, and that will be the determining factor for wanting to watch it again, not how much money it made.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
The poor box office isn't going to retroactively prevent Scott Pilgrim from being made. And since it doesn't need any sequels, it won't prevent any future big screen Pilgrim movies from being made.
And Hollywood will continue to go to the geek well.
"Ben is short for Frank."
-Baffling Beer-Man, The Tenacious 3: The Movie
[IMG]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa10/BafflingBeerman/teamjackface1.jpg[/IMG]
Ad rates are really cheap in the summer so $30 million does get some mileage. Also this wasn't a movie you would advertise to the viewers of NCIS, etc. Still the TV spots were poor.
Also true, Airbender did get the snot advertised out of it. Oddly enough it's doing well enough overseas, in countries that didn't run the original series. Over $250 gross worldwide right now. Still 19th highest grossing film in the US over the last year.
At least it's the most successful film, box office wise, for Edgar Wright. Now the question is will it take another three years for a Wright written and directed film?
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
It has nothing to do with pandering. If you want to target a niche audience, that's fine. Just don't spend a hundred million dollars on something that targets a niche audience: that's stupid. And don't expect people to go see it just to subsidize your taste, no matter how smart or well crafted it might be.|
Originally Posted by Veritech
so, don't listen to geeks and always pander to as many people as possible regardless of the quality of the product. got it. i feel all learned now.
|
The problem is that geeks aren't honest about geek culture. Sometimes it has crossover appeal, sometimes it doesn't. But they (we) rarely admit it. I had a pretty good idea that Scott Pilgrim wasn't going to be a $200m movie, and even $100m was going to take a miracle. Its crossover potential was iffy. Even Inception wasn't well received by everyone, but I had a pretty good idea that Inception was going to appeal to about ten times more people, even though it too was a fairly intelligent and well-crafted movie that wasn't typical summer blockbuster fare (turns out the number is more like thirty times as many, not ten).
It shouldn't be hard to understand why a movie like Star Trek did so well and a movie like Scott Pilgrim didn't. And its not because the movie going audience is "stupid." They sometimes are, but that's not the reason. That same stupid movie going audience turned out to see Gran Turino, they turned out to see District 9, and they even turned out to see Coraline. And I think the fact that it *is* virtually impossible for some people to come to grips with why Star Trek did well against the geek backlash and Scott Pilgrim did poorly with the geek support tells you why Scott Pilgrim failed. Its because people don't get this that they can't ever learn from it.
The bottom line is that Scott Pilgrim's audience was presumed, but Scott Pilgrim isn't even a wide-audience item in the geek culture. Its a subculture of a subculture of a subculture. Its basically a replication of the Speed Racer mistake.
Still, I think the final verdict on Scott Pilgrim isn't in yet. I always thought the very audience that would most want to see Scott Pilgrim would probably buy it on DVD or Netflix the thing. If it does exceptionally well in the home and rental market, it could yet end up being ultimately something of a success.
The amazing irony is that the reason why it isn't connecting with a cross over audience seems to be, at least in my experience, the characters are almost totally unrelateable to people outside the subculture. And that means if you aren't a fan of the work, and you can't connect with the characters, the movie is a bunch of random special effects with no story. Ponder that the next time someone says a big budget action film is just "pandering" to the stupid sheep movie going audience by just having dumb action stars blowing stuff up. What does it mean or matter if you write the smartest script in the world and its about characters so alien to the movie going audience that it might as well be about saguaro cacti.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Speed Racer was awesome. That is all.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It has nothing to do with pandering. If you want to target a niche audience, that's fine. Just don't spend a hundred million dollars on something that targets a niche audience: that's stupid. And don't expect people to go see it just to subsidize your taste, no matter how smart or well crafted it might be.
The problem is that geeks aren't honest about geek culture. Sometimes it has crossover appeal, sometimes it doesn't. But they (we) rarely admit it. I had a pretty good idea that Scott Pilgrim wasn't going to be a $200m movie, and even $100m was going to take a miracle. Its crossover potential was iffy. Even Inception wasn't well received by everyone, but I had a pretty good idea that Inception was going to appeal to about ten times more people, even though it too was a fairly intelligent and well-crafted movie that wasn't typical summer blockbuster fare (turns out the number is more like thirty times as many, not ten). It shouldn't be hard to understand why a movie like Star Trek did so well and a movie like Scott Pilgrim didn't. And its not because the movie going audience is "stupid." They sometimes are, but that's not the reason. That same stupid movie going audience turned out to see Gran Turino, they turned out to see District 9, and they even turned out to see Coraline. And I think the fact that it *is* virtually impossible for some people to come to grips with why Star Trek did well against the geek backlash and Scott Pilgrim did poorly with the geek support tells you why Scott Pilgrim failed. Its because people don't get this that they can't ever learn from it. The bottom line is that Scott Pilgrim's audience was presumed, but Scott Pilgrim isn't even a wide-audience item in the geek culture. Its a subculture of a subculture of a subculture. Its basically a replication of the Speed Racer mistake. Still, I think the final verdict on Scott Pilgrim isn't in yet. I always thought the very audience that would most want to see Scott Pilgrim would probably buy it on DVD or Netflix the thing. If it does exceptionally well in the home and rental market, it could yet end up being ultimately something of a success. The amazing irony is that the reason why it isn't connecting with a cross over audience seems to be, at least in my experience, the characters are almost totally unrelateable to people outside the subculture. And that means if you aren't a fan of the work, and you can't connect with the characters, the movie is a bunch of random special effects with no story. Ponder that the next time someone says a big budget action film is just "pandering" to the stupid sheep movie going audience by just having dumb action stars blowing stuff up. What does it mean or matter if you write the smartest script in the world and its about characters so alien to the movie going audience that it might as well be about saguaro cacti. |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Supposedly Universal knew Scott Pilgrim wouldn't do well in theaters, but green-lighted it because it has cult-hit potential DVD/Blu-Rays.
Branching Paragon Police Department Epic Archetype, please!
Yes Speed Racer was awesome. Still didn't see it in the theater. Didn't even rent it, borrowed the copy from the local library (all of our rental stores died). So I didn't help it in the box office.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
I've seen Scott Pilgrim twice so far and will see it again. Plus I've nagged friends, family, and coworkers into seeing it.
The problem is that the marketing does make it seem that Michael Cera is the star of the movie but he isn't. The movie isn't about Scott Pilgrim but rather about the people he interacts with. Kind of like Willy Wonka (The Gene Wilder movie, not that blasphemous travesty with Johnny Depp doing a bad Michael Jackson impression) isn't about Charlie even though he's the pivot the story rotates around.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Scott Pilgrim suffers from one main issue: It doesn't answer "Why?"
That's what I keep hearing from people who've seen it, even from people who liked it. (My 73-year-old mom went with us to see it even though I warned her repeatedly that it definitely wasn't her kind of movie and she would hate it. It wasn't and she did. So she was asking, "Why did I go to that?" And I replied, "Why *did* you go to that?")
But seriously... people are asking, "WHY does he have to defeat her seven evil exxes?" The answer, of course, is, "Because he does." Most movies at least offer up a reason for the goings-on, no matter how slim that reason might be. Scott Pilgrim doesn't bother. It's meta-commentary on stories: things happen because things have to happen to get from point A to point B.
The secondary question does come back to Michael Cera and the character he plays: WHY are these girls so hung up on him? Again, there's no reason given; you're just supposed to accept that they are. The movie pushes minimalist storytelling beyond where it should be, jettisoning *reasons* for plot and character. Turns out you still need those things, no matter how sketchily drawn. Without that emotional hook, it becomes an exercise in the Rule of Cool and nothing else. The Rule of Cool will get you through the scene you're watching, but it's the emotional impact that'll keep you talking about the movie later... and generate buzz about the film. Scott Pilgrim doesn't have that. It's all flash and no substance. Sure, the flick is enjoyable on a superficial level, but it's no Three O'Clock High.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
Er but you can argue that point for pretty much every movie or story ever.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Scott Pilgrim suffers from one main issue: It doesn't answer "Why?"
That's what I keep hearing from people who've seen it, even from people who liked it. (My 73-year-old mom went with us to see it even though I warned her repeatedly that it definitely wasn't her kind of movie and she would hate it. It wasn't and she did. So she was asking, "Why did I go to that?" And I replied, "Why *did* you go to that?") But seriously... people are asking, "WHY does he have to defeat her seven evil exxes?" The answer, of course, is, "Because he does." Most movies at least offer up a reason for the goings-on, no matter how slim that reason might be. Scott Pilgrim doesn't bother. It's meta-commentary on stories: things happen because things have to happen to get from point A to point B. |
o.O
Quote:
| The secondary question does come back to Michael Cera and the character he plays: WHY are these girls so hung up on him? Again, there's no reason given; you're just supposed to accept that they are. The movie pushes minimalist storytelling beyond where it should be, jettisoning *reasons* for plot and character. Turns out you still need those things, no matter how sketchily drawn. Without that emotional hook, it becomes an exercise in the Rule of Cool and nothing else. The Rule of Cool will get you through the scene you're watching, but it's the emotional impact that'll keep you talking about the movie later... and generate buzz about the film. Scott Pilgrim doesn't have that. It's all flash and no substance. Sure, the flick is enjoyable on a superficial level, but it's no Three O'Clock High. |
Anywho, did I miss the meeting where we all got together and decided to hate Michael Cera? >.>
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
Well, he's in a band.
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
The secondary question does come back to Michael Cera and the character he plays: WHY are these girls so hung up on him?
|
Actually at the confrontation with Gideon it is explained why Scott is fighting the evil exes.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Quote:
Also, Christina Hendricks|
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Well, he's in a band.
|
got engaged to this guy.
So we can't attempt to unravel the female mind.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
Apparently during the same meeting when it was decided Micheal Cera was famous enough to have an opinion about? I've never even heard of the guy so >.>
|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Anywho, did I miss the meeting where we all got together and decided to hate Michael Cera? >.>
|
Quote:
Not really, no - well-constructed movies give reasons for the events of the plot to happen.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Er but you can argue that point for pretty much every movie or story ever.
|
For example, right at the start of A New Hope, George Lucas quite literally spells out some of the key plot points in the opening text crawl, and dialogue and actions throughout the rest of the movie reinforce them and build on them - the audience doesn't need to ask why the Death Star is so dangerous, or why Leia has stolen the plans to it, or why the Empire wants to get them back, because the story tells them why in a clear and logical way.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
But you can always ask an additional "why?" or however many it takes to get back to the original reasoning: because that's the way the writer wants it to be.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Not really, no - well-constructed movies give reasons for the events of the plot to happen.
For example, right at the start of A New Hope, George Lucas quite literally spells out some of the key plot points in the opening text crawl, and dialogue and actions throughout the rest of the movie reinforce them and build on them - the audience doesn't need to ask why the Death Star is so dangerous, or why Leia has stolen the plans to it, or why the Empire wants to get them back, because the story tells them why in a clear and logical way. |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
I didn't see any TV spots, just the trailer - and that was only after I saw a thread about the movie here - I'd never heard of it until then.|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Ad rates are really cheap in the summer so $30 million does get some mileage. Also this wasn't a movie you would advertise to the viewers of NCIS, etc. Still the TV spots were poor.
|
And the trailer was awful - not awful as in "Battlefield Earth" awful, where you could tell it was going to be so bad it'd be funny - but awful as in a waste of time with zero entertainment.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Yeah the movie seemed to left alot of info to be taken for granted. I can agree with your assessment as an outsider to the whole experience. The movie never really points out that it's treating life like a giant video game. Which is the reason why everything plays out the way it does. Beating up waves of goons to rescue your girlfriend was the plot of tons of NES games. With that detail being left out of the mix I can see alot of people not getting it. It's just this understood to the story that I only had because people on the forums mentioned it when the initial buzz about it all was starting as people asked why do the Evil Exs have super powers or Scott for that matter? |
Originally Posted by Ironik Scott Pilgrim suffers from one main issue: It doesn't answer "Why?" That's what I keep hearing from people who've seen it, even from people who liked it. (My 73-year-old mom went with us to see it even though I warned her repeatedly that it definitely wasn't her kind of movie and she would hate it. It wasn't and she did. So she was asking, "Why did I go to that?" And I replied, "Why *did* you go to that?") But seriously... people are asking, "WHY does he have to defeat her seven evil exxes?" The answer, of course, is, "Because he does." Most movies at least offer up a reason for the goings-on, no matter how slim that reason might be. Scott Pilgrim doesn't bother. It's meta-commentary on stories: things happen because things have to happen to get from point A to point B. |
So things are metaphors of video games concepts super imposed to the dating world. It's an amusing concept but the first hour of the movie brutally drags. The movie doesn't reach it's hook till somewhere between the 45 min to hour mark when Matt Patell makes his entrance which really hurt the film. I knew there would be some set up but literally everything in the first hour could been condescended into first 20 mins. Rest was the movie meandering in it's own geekiness and thinking that was enough to win us over. It wasn't.
Quote:
| The secondary question does come back to Michael Cera and the character he plays: WHY are these girls so hung up on him? Again, there's no reason given; you're just supposed to accept that they are. The movie pushes minimalist storytelling beyond where it should be, jettisoning *reasons* for plot and character. Turns out you still need those things, no matter how sketchily drawn. Without that emotional hook, it becomes an exercise in the Rule of Cool and nothing else. The Rule of Cool will get you through the scene you're watching, but it's the emotional impact that'll keep you talking about the movie later... and generate buzz about the film. Scott Pilgrim doesn't have that. It's all flash and no substance. Sure, the flick is enjoyable on a superficial level, but it's no Three O'Clock High. |
Granted Ramona comes across as a fast woman(as she almost sleeps with him on the first date.) and bit of a B-witch based off her history with men. (G-man was probably the guy she really deserved as she made the evil exs.) You can understand easily why he'd want to date her initially but once Scott sees her baggage it's a wonder why he'd continue or be in love with a girl he barely knows besides the whole love at first sight/destiny crap. Their relationship ultimately just feels forced compared to Knives who I've seen play out simliarly in real life tons of times, as their interactions felt much more natural. Everything just ends up being this blank check the movie cashes because it says so.
Quote:
| Anywho, did I miss the meeting where we all got together and decided to hate Michael Cera? |
Quote:
|
The problem is that geeks aren't honest about geek culture. Sometimes it has crossover appeal, sometimes it doesn't. But they (we) rarely admit it. I had a pretty good idea that Scott Pilgrim wasn't going to be a $200m movie, and even $100m was going to take a miracle. Its crossover potential was iffy. Even Inception wasn't well received by everyone, but I had a pretty good idea that Inception was going to appeal to about ten times more people, even though it too was a fairly intelligent and well-crafted movie that wasn't typical summer blockbuster fare (turns out the number is more like thirty times as many, not ten). It shouldn't be hard to understand why a movie like Star Trek did so well and a movie like Scott Pilgrim didn't. And its not because the movie going audience is "stupid." They sometimes are, but that's not the reason. That same stupid movie going audience turned out to see Gran Turino, they turned out to see District 9, and they even turned out to see Coraline. And I think the fact that it *is* virtually impossible for some people to come to grips with why Star Trek did well against the geek backlash and Scott Pilgrim did poorly with the geek support tells you why Scott Pilgrim failed. Its because people don't get this that they can't ever learn from it. |
Sure super heroes and comics have found their way into pop culture. Just there's the huge difference they've been distilled thru hollywood's lens and most of the hard edges sanded off for main stream audiences. (There's plenty of characters with needlessly complicated backstories that would never fly in a movie.)Why those properties actually enjoy success besides just being good movies. This movie didn't as it was pure undistill geekdom and it's no shocker people are turning their noses up at it. The world just isn't ready for it.
As my friend said, who hell knows what Scott Pilgrim is? He didn't and I didn't prior to looking up more about it. I knew it was a graphic novel, but not much else. It's an incredibly niche audience. I can see how this could be a cult hit, but it's something that likely won't fly with the mainstream audience as it's like a giant inside joke that they just won't get or appreciate. (Such as my girlfriend whom I took with didn't get most of the gaming references, and found the movie equally average as I did.) An average film with a niche audience and an above average budget.....that just a recipe to lose money.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
No, because the story has an internal logic that makes it understandable.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
But you can always ask an additional "why?" or however many it takes to get back to the original reasoning: because that's the way the writer wants it to be.
|
A good story gives the characters motivations for the things they say and do - a bad story has things happen "just because".
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Uh no because all elements of a story boil down to "it's that way because that's the way the writer wants it." There are various extents to which you can separate the "why" of the story to the aforementioned basic reasoning, but don't try to say they're all either iron-clad or nonsensical. Hell, in the trailer you even hear the chick say, "If we're going to be dating you may have to defeat my 7 evil exes." so that's one of those supposedly unanswered "whys" answered right there.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
No, because the story has an internal logic that makes it understandable.
A good story gives the characters motivations for the things they say and do - a bad story has things happen "just because". |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
I am beginning to think you're incapable of critical thinking. You seem always make gross over generalizations as a defense for anything. Once it's fiction you seem think that the writers or directors can just cash this blank check for everything and it just gets a pass regardless how jarring said details are to have missing.| But you can always ask an additional "why?" or however many it takes to get back to the original reasoning: because that's the way the writer wants it to be. |
Movies are like the Matrix, it has feel real and geniune enough to keep our attention. It doesnt we keep waking up from it. Leaving too many details out without support basically does that. While people don't have time to explain everything(you only get so much time to infodump before your audiences attention span expires.), you do need to atleast put enough skeleton to the story to get people up to speed to fill in the blanks.
Yes you can deconstruct anything to point it doesn't work, but there's a happy balance between making everything air tight and writing everything like it's loony tunes where the improbable happen all time and it's never explained because it's an understood that that world functions on that. You can't just give free passes to every plot holes solely on the basis it's fiction.(as you all too often do foamy.)
In case of Scott Pilgrim (which again makes all more assinine you're making one of your cliched overgeneralizations defenses about a movie you didn't even see.) the director needs show why Scott is in love with a girl he just met instead of a girl he was dating who he has real chemistry with since HE'S FIGHTING TO THE DEATH FOR HER. That's kind of important. Otherwise its because they said so and nothing more. People feel nothing and dislike movies telling not showing.
As I said before the movie doesn't give us any real indication why or let the audience know that it's supposed be a giant video game. (which not everyone plays tons of video games.) These are thing that the audience kind of needs to know and understand to enjoy the film. Not everyone is going be bought on flash alone. The fighting was good..but that doesn't make a movie...atleast not this one. This really is another Speed racer in that regard.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
He carried Youth in Revolt by himself just fine, I think.
|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I don't hate him, but he just can't carry a movie himself. His performance was flatter than a week old soda. All secondary characters were for most part more entertaining than the leads were. Wallace was awesome, as he's by far the coolest gay character ever.
|
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
Why things happen isn't always important. It didn't matter why Bill Murray kept re-living Groundhog Day, for example.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
No, because the story has an internal logic that makes it understandable.
A good story gives the characters motivations for the things they say and do - a bad story has things happen "just because". |
Quote:
I didn't see it, but the trailer gave me no incentive to. Like oh yes let's watch Michael Cera be awkward. I'll pass as it was fine in superbad, but he was part of a larger cast and there was enough stuff they to keep it going. He works in that sort of setting as the straight man to all other characters. He was meh in Scott Pilgrim.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
He carried Youth in Revolt by himself just fine, I think.
|
Quote:
| Why things happen isn't always important. It didn't matter why Bill Murray kept re-living Groundhog Day, for example. |
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
One can only hope that the DVD/Blu-ray sales will make up for the difference.
Also, the video game's sales.
Current Published Arcs
#1 "Too Drunk to be Alcoholic" Arc #48942
#2 "To Slay Sleeping Dragons" Arc #111486
#3 "Stop Calling Me"