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
Quote:
You are the first person I have spoken to that as sai there was any character evelopment at all. Not saying you are wrong, just surprise that anyone sai there was plot evelopment.
|
Originally Posted by BrandX
No character developement? It had character developement. It just wasn't all big, complicated and the whole of the movie.
A merc goes back to rescue a girl, not for the money, but basically to save his soul. The scene with Mickey Rourke explains that, and was quite touching. Was it the focus of the movie? Nooo. And it was never intended to be the sole focus of the movie. |
Quote:
Just wanted to chime in on this, even though I haven't read every post here.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Scott Pilgrim suffers from one main issue: It doesn't answer "Why?"
|
I had only heard of the SP comics in passing, had never read them, and didn't really know what to expect of the movie. I went to see it and absolutely loved it, and a big part of the reason I loved it was because it was just bat-s*** insane. So the lack of explanation to me was what made it great. It was just a fun, very funny movie that for some reason takes place in a video game world where crazy crap happens without any explanation. It seemed like someone's fever dream, and I really liked that. I suspect it's the same reason I'll like Suckerpunch.
So I think the reason it semi-flopped is because, as others have said before, it's a big budget movie targeted at a niche of a niche. I don't think anyone should have had any reasonable expectation of big box office success on this one. Most people probably don't get why people explode into coins when you kill them, or why there are random doors floating in space, or why a sword came out of his chest at the end, or what the prefix "Nega" means. And this is on top of the fact that even when you get all those references, the movie is still frenetic and shallow. So even within the 8-bit video game enthusiast niche, it still wont appeal to people who wanted to see something more substantial than a nerd's comedic fever dream power fantasy.
I loved it, probably because I'm in that niche, or maybe just a little outside it, but man is that a narrow demographic.
bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner-
ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenth ur-
nuk!
Quote:
Well that's the only point I was making: that you can trace all of those elements back to the writer's whim. There may be a setup of internal logic, character motivation, etc, but all of it comes down to elements that were put there because the writer made it so. It just comes down to the degree of in-story setup and explanation. It seems in the case of Scott Pilgrim vs The World, it's like a one-level explanation of "he has to fight the evil exes in order to be with her."|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Well, I'm certainly not disputing that. In this instance about this particular film, however, I think one of the primary reasons there's no after-buzz and lack of good word-of-mouth about Scott Pilgrim is because there's no heart to it. As I've said, there are no reasons for why anything happens.
There's been the cliche of the actor asking, "But what is my character's motivation?" for ages, but it's a good question to ask of any movie. The primary villain in Coraline (Other Mother) suffers from the same lack of motivation, but it's easy to gloss over because everyone else in that movie has a very clearly delineated motivation. That shows even a key component can be missing so long as you have enough supporting elements to disguise the lack. The problem with Scott Pilgrim is that *none* of the characters have a motivation to do what they do. It's incumbent upon the creators of a film to throw the audience a bone when it comes to motivation. Even the barest one-liner suffices for most characters in an action flick. As I mentioned earlier about Groundhog Day, you don't even have to *say* it aloud, just indicate it through the actions of the character. Scott Pilgrim doesn't do any of this; it just says, "This is what they're doing because I said so." |
I also noted how people tend to have different level of expectations for such setup and explanation based on traits of the film, and for one that seems so stylized and comical, I have trouble understanding why people have relatively higher expectations for such details.
- 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:
And various exes say that they want to control Ramona's love life. Matthew Patel's email even implied as such and that's what got Scott in trouble in the first place, he just skimmed it. It is an analogy to real life where sometimes your new significant other's past shades the current relationship.|
Originally Posted by Mandu
Actually at the confrontation with Gideon it is explained why Scott is fighting the evil exes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
By contrast, Scott Pilgrim doesn't even have that. There's no undercurrent to the film: it's all surface, no depth. Scott has to defeat Ramona's evil exxes in order to date her. There's nothing to be learned from that for Scott or for the audience. That's just how it is. There's no reason given for anything else that happens, either. Why is Scott in love with Ramona? One can see why he's attracted to her, but *love*? Why is Ramona willing to date Scott? Why are all the other girls so hung up on him? There's nothing intrinsically interesting or compelling about him, because the story doesn't offer any reasons.
|
Also, there is character development/"deepness" to the story, though it is a little glossed over. The whole final fight with Gideon, when Scott realizes he needs to fight for himself, and Scott subsequently apologizing to Kim, along with Ramona saying earlier that Scott will just end up another evil ex, is pointing out that Scott was a jerk in his previous relationships. But Ramona and fighting through her skeletons in the closet shed light upon his own past and forced Scott to become a better man (earning the power of self-respect). What the audience and Scott are learning through those fights is that everyone has baggage, but you can't avoid it. It is symbolic.
Scott isn't Ramona's Knight in Shining Armor in the beginning, but at the end, he has matured enough to be different from her previous relationship in that he recognizes his own faults and even before that Ramona considers that Scott is "nice" (her words). If you remember her stories of the previous exes, she and them was always doing something violent or disrespectful (Matt and her beat up jocks, The Vegan punched a hole in the Moon for her, Gideon completely ignored her). Except for the actually fighting of the exes, Scott and Ramona, together, are "normal." That's what attracts Ramona and when Scott reveals his cheating ways to her and Knives, that's what threatens their relationship in the climax. But Self-Respect Scott apologizes, something that I am sure the Evil Exes would never do.
As far as why Scott would be attractive to women? Well, the women are young, he's confidant, he's in a band...I would say the same reason why young women are attracted to those sorts of guys in real life are why they are attracted to Scott. Before things turn sour with Knives, we see Scott acting charming with her, playing games and introducing her to music. Maybe they just don't know any better. I mean, none of the characters are exactly wizened old sages. It's youth.
"Ben is short for Frank."
-Baffling Beer-Man, The Tenacious 3: The Movie
[IMG]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa10/BafflingBeerman/teamjackface1.jpg[/IMG]
Quote:
If I've been aggressive it's because I was tired and couldn't muster the patience to deal with your particular brand of arrogance.|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
You want to call people trolls but you've been more aggressive than anyone else in the thread. You're the one going off topic as what did your commentary have to do with Scott Pilgrim? Absolutely nothing. I don't care if you don't like what I have say. Either lay off the BS or atleast come up with some better comebacks. I can forgive people laying into me if they re atleast cleaver or making points that have something to do with said topic. You just all around fail.
|
And I was remarking on storytelling in general. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a story, so . . .
Quote:
|
No one disagreeing with that that author's get to make whatever setting and point they want. You just seem be giving people the permission to suck and completely gloss over everything. That's where I disagree. This movie was a love story with no actually love scenes building up a relationship. You can say the director has right to ignore that because he's the director...but thats an excuse for bad writing/directing in this particular example. You really need to include something to give the audience some bearing to why what is happening on screen is happening. The movie was originally written to where Scott actually gets the other girl. The ending only thnig that doesn't fit with that as the rest of the script reflects the original choice. This hurt the film. (something you missed in your silly off topic tirade since you dont get the fact you don't know what you're talking about and insist your point matters here.) |
Quote:
| Well if you want to pull technicalities on, this then oh lets play that game. Then we're going solely off the info of the second movie, then you don't know the there was a big fight at the end to cover up in the first movie in the first place(you have completely no context to assume anything really at that point.), so it's still not a plot hole then. If you do know about all the details of the first movie then you can understand how it could have functioned. It works either way unless you re not paying attention. |
Quote:
| No how about you actually read my post instead of digging a deeper hole. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HECK YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT!...period. None of your facts however sound change this or make you any less off topic. Stop talking out of your behind and making sweeping overgeneralizations like you're freaking John Madden. (if you keep scoring more points you'll beat the other team.) Ironik made a serious and relevant point. Something you haven't done all thread. You turn around and undermind that by tossing out some meaningless observation that had nothing to do with the discussion. You want to be a know it all actually know what the heck you re talking about a contribute something that is on topic. Or at very least makes a metaphor for something relevant to the topic. You've done none of the above and more than likely will probably continue doing so. |
- 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:
Gideon ("Ganon") sent them, and they kept attacking Scott. Scott at first was defending himself, but then got pulled into fighting to save Ramona (the Princess). Also, it's not like something he hasn't done before, as told by the story he told Ramona about the time he fought to be with Kim Pine. Well more like blurted out the story...come to think about it, they really should have put in the animated short at that point instead of they way they did it.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
"WHY does he have to defeat her seven evil exxes?"
|
As for why the evil exes are doing it? Gideon explained later that Ramona hurt people so badly after they fall in love with her, it took only 2 hours to form the League of Evil Exes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
WHY are these girls so hung up on him?
|
I wouldn't write Pilgrim off just yet- it's going to rake in a big pile on DVD sales to the very nerds who couldn't be bothered to haul their carcasses out to a theater to see it.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
First, never read the comic, just the Wikipedia entry for the comic.
The movie makes a lot more sense if you realize it's all from Scott's point of view. The movie opens with "Scott Pilgrim - Status: Awesome". Except he's not awesome except in his own mind. As long as he's alright with a situation, everyone else is.
Take Kim, he's sure everything is fine between them but considering the daggers she's shooting at him every time she looks at him it's obvious to everyone else that there are still unresolved issues there.
Take Knives, he cheats on her, even though they have a rather chaste relationship, but he doesn't really consider it cheating because in his mind he's already moved on to Ramona.
His friendship with Wallace. No who else but him thinks it's Okay to scrounge off your friend indefinitely, including sharing a bed. As long as Scott thinks things are OK, everyone thinks it's OK.
His band. He's a mediocre at best bass player. He's easily distracted. Blows off practice and isn't interested in the actual success of the band. But he's alright with that so everyone else must be too.
The only baggage he carries is his breakup with Envy (N. V., cute, thank you wiki). She treated him as carelessly as he does with other women. But it had nothing to do with him of course, it was his haircut that caused the breakup, hence the hat every time someone mentions his scruffy hair.
So when he gets gobsmacked by the site of Ramona after she wanders through his head she instantly becomes the prize, the goal, the reward. More so once the league gets involved. But in the end he wasn't concern about the league because what's important to him was that they were dating, nothing else mattered.
So basically at the core. Scott isn't a nice person. He isn't awesome, he's a dick who thinks he's awesome. But actually he's banked up a lot of bad Karma.
Ramona on the other hand is very much like Scott except she's aware of her failings. But instead of facing them she flees from them hoping to start fresh. Again Karma's a *****. I think she would have been happy not dating anybody but once she crosses through Scott's mind they were linked.
Scott's encounters with the league highlight his inadequacies. Most are more successful than he is. All think they're better than him. Yet Ramona dumped them all. Scott believes he has to defeat them to prove to Ramona that he's better than all of them.
At it's core the movie is about accepting responsibility and consequence of past relationships, yours and your partner's and try to move on. To, continue? 9..8..7..
I can see some liberal arts elective on film including this film as one to dissect and discuss the true underlying themes.
I've seen it twice. I'm thinking of picking up on DVD when it comes out, something I don't do often with movies.
I'm disappointed that it didn't succeed as well in theaters. I think the TV ads didn't sell the film properly. I think the movie posters and stand-ups didn't sell the film properly, at least the ones around here. It's not a straight up comedy or action or romance or fantasy film and in a movie market where a film is promoted as being one specific genre, they simply didn't know how to sell it.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
I don't think the story Scott blurts out is supposed to be actually how it went, most of what he describes Simon Lee doing didn't actually happen in either the animated short or the comic. He's just blurting out something sarcastic because he's pissy at Ramona.
|
Originally Posted by Innovator
Also, it's not like something he hasn't done before, as told by the story he told Ramona about the time he fought to be with Kim Pine. Well more like blurted out the story...come to think about it, they really should have put in the animated short at that point instead of they way they did it.
|
I hadn't seen the animated short until now. I wants it! Throw out the movie and animate the whole story and I will be pleased.
Quote:
I know, it's just how it came off to me in the movie.
|
Originally Posted by Warp_Factor
I don't think the story Scott blurts out is supposed to be actually how it went, most of what he describes Simon Lee doing didn't actually happen in either the animated short or the comic. He's just blurting out something sarcastic because he's pissy at Ramona.
|
Quote:
This pretty much expresses exactly my feelings about the movie except I'm not just thinking about picking it up on dvd. I'm definitely picking it up on dvd.|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
First, never read the comic, just the Wikipedia entry for the comic.
The movie makes a lot more sense if you realize it's all from Scott's point of view. The movie opens with "Scott Pilgrim - Status: Awesome". Except he's not awesome except in his own mind. As long as he's alright with a situation, everyone else is. Take Kim, he's sure everything is fine between them but considering the daggers she's shooting at him every time she looks at him it's obvious to everyone else that there are still unresolved issues there. Take Knives, he cheats on her, even though they have a rather chaste relationship, but he doesn't really consider it cheating because in his mind he's already moved on to Ramona. His friendship with Wallace. No who else but him thinks it's Okay to scrounge off your friend indefinitely, including sharing a bed. As long as Scott thinks things are OK, everyone thinks it's OK. His band. He's a mediocre at best bass player. He's easily distracted. Blows off practice and isn't interested in the actual success of the band. But he's alright with that so everyone else must be too. The only baggage he carries is his breakup with Envy (N. V., cute, thank you wiki). She treated him as carelessly as he does with other women. But it had nothing to do with him of course, it was his haircut that caused the breakup, hence the hat every time someone mentions his scruffy hair. So when he gets gobsmacked by the site of Ramona after she wanders through his head she instantly becomes the prize, the goal, the reward. More so once the league gets involved. But in the end he wasn't concern about the league because what's important to him was that they were dating, nothing else mattered. So basically at the core. Scott isn't a nice person. He isn't awesome, he's a dick who thinks he's awesome. But actually he's banked up a lot of bad Karma. Ramona on the other hand is very much like Scott except she's aware of her failings. But instead of facing them she flees from them hoping to start fresh. Again Karma's a *****. I think she would have been happy not dating anybody but once she crosses through Scott's mind they were linked. Scott's encounters with the league highlight his inadequacies. Most are more successful than he is. All think they're better than him. Yet Ramona dumped them all. Scott believes he has to defeat them to prove to Ramona that he's better than all of them. At it's core the movie is about accepting responsibility and consequence of past relationships, yours and your partner's and try to move on. To, continue? 9..8..7.. I can see some liberal arts elective on film including this film as one to dissect and discuss the true underlying themes. I've seen it twice. I'm thinking of picking up on DVD when it comes out, something I don't do often with movies. I'm disappointed that it didn't succeed as well in theaters. I think the TV ads didn't sell the film properly. I think the movie posters and stand-ups didn't sell the film properly, at least the ones around here. It's not a straight up comedy or action or romance or fantasy film and in a movie market where a film is promoted as being one specific genre, they simply didn't know how to sell it. |
And to anybody here who hasn't seen it yet, don't bother to post your opinion on the movie until you have seen it. You can't judge it from the trailers any more than you can judge a Shyamalan movie based on the trailers.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Yayy!
Scott Pilgrim is still in the theatre in Chico, CA!
Quote:
I grow tired of you being denser than lead. You don't seem read posts so if you really don't get it just say so(as look at the thread...other people are quoting what I said and trying have a discussion.) and I'll ignore you saving us both time.| If I've been aggressive it's because I was tired and couldn't muster the patience to deal with your particular brand of arrogance. |
Quote:
| And I was remarking on storytelling in general. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a story, so . . . |
Quote:
|
As far as I am aware, the big fight at the end of the second one just revolved around getting the matrix of leadership to Optimus then The Fallen using it to jump-start the sun-killing machine. I've seen the film a few times, and there was no mention of that fight covering up anything. If there was an explanation in a tie-in comic or the novelization, that's another thing altogether. |
You first say what I mentioned was using data from the first to resolve said plothole I was saying was covered there for it didn't count since it was from the first film. I mention people wouldn't know what happened in the first to know it needed covered up. Now you mention the finale of the second film...how does that go with what you mentioned before? I'm not even sure what you're trying show me or prove as you're all over the place.
Quote:
| No. I never said it was an excuse to write crappy stories |
Quote:
| Whoa there settle down sparky. I don't know who keeps peeing in your cheerios but I keep making and restating these points about storytelling, but for whatever reason you seem intent on arguing with me and attempting to paint me as an ignorant fanboy. Try to actually think about what I'm saying and your response before leaping into arguments. |
Don't play coy like you've been this stellar and intelligent poster.Your words are as empty as your soul!You've posted nothing constructive this entire thread. You quoted Arcannaville's entire post just to say Speedrace was awesome.(and it wasn't. It was meh.) You tossed in photos oh Mrs Hendrix as a point to a movie you haven't seen. And tossed in several posts to me and others about a point that didn't need to be made in the first. Kettle black troll king. I dont even know why you're in this thread other than to be disruptive since it's all you seem to be doing is trying to derail it.
You want to tell me Im not reading posts when I said I got it. I wasn't intent on arguing your point, I was intent on telling you shut the heck up because you're off topic and irrelevant to this discussion. You want to tell me what I was intent on doing...be right about that atleast.
Your post (which I opted to ignore till several posts down when I saw your pointless statement was going keep coming.)
Quote:
| Er but you can argue that point for pretty much every movie or story ever. |
Quote:
| 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. |
- 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:
If you're growing tired does that mean you'll go back under your bridge?|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I grow tired of you being denser than lead. You don't seem read posts so if you really don't get it just say so(as look at the thread...other people are quoting what I said and trying have a discussion.) and I'll ignore you saving us both time.
|
Quote:
| And I got the message in your first damn post. You're broken and irrelevant record. And like I said still had nothing do with the discussion. I didn't disagree with it...I just said it was a pointless statement to make in the first place. Something that seems to escape you for several post oh captainfoamforbrains. |
Quote:
|
And what does that have to do with anything I mentioned? Heck what does that have do with anything you mentioned? And why even mention transformers in the first place on a thread not about them? Oh here why, Foamy has no ability to stay on topic or make a gosh darn point. You first say what I mentioned was using data from the first to resolve said plothole I was saying was covered there for it didn't count since it was from the first film. I mention people wouldn't know what happened in the first to know it needed covered up. Now you mention the finale of the second film...how does that go with what you mentioned before? I'm not even sure what you're trying show me or prove as you're all over the place. |
Quote:
| Oh but you have before. (see district 9 and several threads we discussion batman in.) Basically you go doesn't need be explained because it's fiction. There's no rules...nothing needs be coherent or make sense because the writer says so....That was your arguement against me on several fronts. It's all fine and great you're a simpleton , but don't expect me follow suit. |
Quote:
|
Settle down? You realize who you're talking to right? I haven' even remotely nerdraged up this topic at all. I've kept it rather civil compared to some of my more explosive moments. I think you've seen your share of them to know better. Don't play coy like you've been this stellar and intelligent poster. [http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=OMTizJemHO8&feature=related"]Your words are as empty as your soul![/URL] You've posted nothing constructive this entire thread. You quoted Arcannaville's entire post just to say Speedrace was awesome.(and it wasn't. It was meh.) You tossed in photos oh Mrs Hendrix as a point to a movie you haven't seen. And tossed in several posts to me and others about a point that didn't need to be made in the first. Kettle black troll king. I dont even know why you're in this thread other than to be disruptive since it's all you seem to be doing is trying to derail it. |
Quote:
|
You want to tell me Im not reading posts when I said I got it. I wasn't intent on arguing your point, I was intent on telling you shut the heck up because you're off topic and irrelevant to this discussion. You want to tell me what I was intent on doing...be right about that atleast. Your post (which I opted to ignore till several posts down when I saw your pointless statement was going keep coming.) Lets look at what I said. In my first post I replied to your "point" I agreed right then and there.Who's not reading? That would be you. So yeah you've proven you're a few pokemon short of full dex. Not much else. |
And I wasn't talking about any balance between the explained and unexplained, but rather the validity of basing one's overall assessment of a film on the degree of background information and characterization when our tolerance for the unexplained varies from movie to movie. And that's like the third time I've said that.
But if you will be ignoring me from now on then I guess I'll leave you with one final pro tip: If you're arguing on the same side as GG's logic and Michael Bay's storytelling, you're probably on the wrong side of the debate.
- 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:
What Scott learned was hard to miss- it was announced loudly and flashed on the screen.
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
By contrast, Scott Pilgrim doesn't even have that. There's no undercurrent to the film: it's all surface, no depth. Scott has to defeat Ramona's evil exxes in order to date her. There's nothing to be learned from that for Scott or for the audience.
|
gotta love how we've managed to stray JUST enough from the actual OP but still somehow manage to stick to the subject line of the whole thread.
(shrugs) Anyways I think mistakes were made with this movie, but I found the parts that were good to be enjoyable. It probably could have done better if several different approaches were taken but who knows may be will get it's money back and then some on DVD.
I don't agree kickass belongs on the list with this since it made enough cash to get a sequel green lighted. I'll be really shocked in there's any sequels to Scott Pilgrim vs the world. Though crazier things have happened.
- 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!!
Most geeks are cheapskates that is for sure, especially as ticket prices are only going up. But I don't agree with their assessment that most would steal the movie. Waiting to rent/buy on dvd tends to be the popular option in most cases, such as what happened with Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
Quote:
*nod* I agree, I know a pretty good number of geeks and most of them would be willing to admit it if they pirated this movie, but no one has. I think a lot of it is down to people outside geek culture not understanding it; they see the sheer number of geeks on the internet compared to non-geeks and they think there must be an army of geeks out there just waiting to spend money on geek stuff. They don't get that almost every geek is on the internet in some way, while most non-geeks aren't really. What they see on the net isn't a percentage of us from which they can estimate how many of us there really are; this is pretty much all of us.
|
Originally Posted by Turbo_Ski
But I don't agree with their assessment that most would steal the movie. Waiting to rent/buy on dvd tends to be the popular option in most cases, such as what happened with Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.
|
Production companies make their money off of licensing the rights to their movies, not showing them in theaters. In 2007 production companies made about $4 billion from American theaters but $35 billion from things like DVDs, foreign distributors, and television.
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." -- Dinobot
For everyone comparing Kick-*** to Scott Pilgrim, I think Watchmen is a better comparison to use.
Well if the preliminary weekend box office numbers hold up, Scott Pilgrim beat both The Expendables and Eat Pray Love in per theater box office. Of course the other two are in double or triple the number of theaters.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Don't remind me, I wanted to slap the 8 out of 10 people that said it was all about blue *****
|
Originally Posted by OzzieArcane
For everyone comparing Kick-*** to Scott Pilgrim, I think Watchmen is a better comparison to use.
|
Many posters said they refused to see SP because it was
A) To much like a rom com
B) Did not like Cera
C) Conflicted ideas on who the target age was
D) Did not feel the movie was "manly" or had enough action.
E) Did not like that type of movie (They hate fun?)
F) Any combination of the above.
I mean, this should have been shoe in on the boards and it failed even that.
It's frustrating that such a good movie was out done by Eat Pray Love and Vampires Suck, much less an action movie that had the flimsiest story with no character development. Yet, there we go. At least I can understand why the Expendables beat out SP in the end, even if I disagree with that.
A merc goes back to rescue a girl, not for the money, but basically to save his soul. The scene with Mickey Rourke explains that, and was quite touching.
Was it the focus of the movie? Nooo. And it was never intended to be the sole focus of the movie.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection