Break out your Tumblr bingo card, because Scott Pilgrim vs the World may not be the Greatest Movie EVER!
Click on the movie poster or the title above to download our review of the film, featuring Tom and Rachel Pandich.
Review in a Nutshell: A technically adept film with outstanding visual composition and moments of genuine humor, Scott Pilgrim vs the World is nonetheless dragged under by an onslaught of unsympathetic characters. It is the triumph of style over substance.
The Greatest Movie EVER! Podcast 
often when people accuse a movie of being sexist/racist etc, they’re assuming that anything any character says or does in a film is advocated by the film makers. they’re called characters for a reason, scott is obviously supposed to be an idiot, how black and white do you need him to be? theres such a lack of ambiguity in mainstream film already, you guys sounded like the Chinese governments film guidelines saying you needed to see him punished.
Whoever wrote that in: I have no recollection of ever saying I thought that was the message of this film or the comic. It doesn’t sound like something I’d say. Also, Paul Chapman is right 33% of the time, not 25%. This inaccuracy has me calling the accuracy of the entire inquiry into question.
For a second, I thought that Tom said “based on a manga” just as a sarcastic rib. Then I realized he actually was being legit. So, because nobody corrected him at any point, and Paul backed him up on it: Scott Pilgrim is not “manga” and the author rightly doesn’t refer to the work as such. It’s not “manga-style” because that phrase doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s a Canadian indie comic. At best, you can say it’s “manga-inspired.” Fun fact: most people who say “the Akira manga is better” have never read the Akira manga. They just say that to be fashionable.
Scott Pilgrim came out in theaters the same day as The Expendables. I forever judge people negatively based on whether or not they chose to see Scott Pilgrim before The Expendables. It is the kind of action that forever brands you and lets me know exactly what kind of person you are. (I judge especially negatively if they only saw Scott Pilgrim and NEVER saw The Expendables.) So my response to “can’t we all just get along?” is “while the enemies of the Emperor still draw breath, there can be no peace.”
I didn’t intend to see this movie, but then I heard lots of feedback saying “they gutted the coming-of-age and romance elements of the comic in favor of adding more action” so I went. The trailer suggested No More Heroes: The Motion Picture, but over half of this film is a goddamned romantic comedy. The genre that is lowest of the low. Lower than horror, even. That said, 30% action, 70% “we are 20-somethings in the city who are reprehensible yet presented as if we’re sympathetic or aspirational” garbage is still a lot more action than the comic. They actually added battles for the movie (the music battle against the twins). So the online feedback was true…it was just half-true.
People bought me this $10 Blu-Ray as a malicious gift because they knew I reluctantly saw it in the theater and was let down that it wasn’t No More Heroes: The Motion Picture. So I checked out the extras of it, and one thing that was interesting was that each of the actors was given a secret fact about their characters from the author. Julie’s secret fact was “she is secretly in love with Scott Pilgrim,” which had me realize that pretty much every woman in this film aside from Stacey (and Roxy…maybe) is in love with Scott Pilgrim aka “Michael Cera as himself.” Perhaps that is because of the way the comic played out (I read the entire thing…after seeing this), but I can’t actually think of any male supporting characters who did NOT end up gay. Perhaps there were some, but that’d require me to re-read it.
The “manga” thing was a rib, Daryl. I thought that much was obvious from the bursts of laughter that immediately followed it, and me going back and deliberately using “manga” as a synonym for graphic novel. I can’t believe you didn’t get that joke. Is this a subtle form of reverse trolling?
We saw the Expendables first and then Scott Pilgrim the next weekend. Also, the “based on a manga comment” was meant specifically to upset you when I said it. It apparently did so my work is done.
Don’t kill me, I enjoyed the film…..’hides in cupboard’.
In the original comic, Scott being a self-centered dick is kind of the point; the whole story is about him eventually growing to be not (or progressively less of) a dick; the movie suffers by essentially excising this and making it instead about his attaining Self-Respect, which is bullshit. That said, I still love it, but it’s basically a “greatest hits that kind of misses the point” of the source material.
See this article for why the comic works and where the movie doesn’t (plus you should all be reading Mindless Ones anyhow): http://mindlessones.com/2011/03/08/looking-glass-hearts-forever/#more-13885
I like this movie as well. It’s a tough day to be a fan of both this movie and this podcast. But I agree with the point made about nerd references, because more broadly that seems to be an issue with the current nerd-friendly sphere of popular culture. If The Big Bang Theory and Community, and Scott Pilgrim I suppose, were actually funny, it might not be so astonishingly grating
I actually thought Scott Pilgrim was a good film. Hell, I even bought it on sale on the Amazon Instant Video store last Xmas. Nice visuals, a small dose of comedy, pulsating music, and, of course, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty darn hot as a bipolar, kickass love interest. (I prefer the pink hair out of the three shown)
I walked away from the movie with an odd feeling about it, knowing that my early 20s’ self would adore the movie and graphic novels and see it as a cultural milestone, but being in my late 20s at the time, I see all the sentimentalities of the characters as mistakes of the past that my older self know as wrong and stupid.
Perhaps that is the big problem: the audience this movie speaks best to is not to the older geek guard but the high school/college age.
I think that in about 50 years, there’s going to be an academic trend of “early 21st century studies.” When these hypothetical future academics look back at what our culture produced and accomplished during this period, what they’re going to see is an entire society lost up its own ass. And I think the whole Scott Pilgrim thing could well be one of the prime examples of this quality that they cite: a work that focuses on self-absorbed assholes and is as much about references to video games and cartoons as it is about telling a story – in the case of the movie, moreso about the references than storytelling. It is, in a way, the quintessential work for the modern era; the problem lies in what that fact says about the era in question.
I must say this was probably the most painful “Greatest Movie Ever” podcast I have listened to. I was prepared for the Scott Pilgrim hate-fest, I was not prepared for how emasculated the hosts where. It should be a greatest movie law that whenever Rachel is on the show Daryl or Shawn (Shaun?) have to be a co-host. Hearing Paul and Tom bow and scrape for approval from her like little children wanting to please their mother was excruciating!
“I was not prepared for how emasculated the hosts where. It should be a greatest movie law that whenever Rachel is on the show Daryl or Shawn (Shaun?) have to be a co-host. Hearing Paul and Tom bow and scrape for approval from her like little children wanting to please their mother was excruciating!”
Okaaaay. Please, enlighten me as to when I emasculated Paul and Tom. Was it when Paul explained why he did not like the movie on conclusions he came to on his own? Or was it when I described the casual misogyny that is in the film to prove Paul’s point? Was it when my husband, Tom, was acting flirty with me? Or was it when I tried to get Paul to talk more about the fight scenes and he said no. Or when Tom called shenanigans on one of my opinions? Having an opinionated and vocal female, who shares most of the same opinions as her male counterparts, does not mean I “emasculated” either of them. If I was Robert instead of Rachel and had a deeper voice would you really be making this complaint of them trying to please me? I really doubt that.
As for Daryl and Shaun, I’ve never podcasted with Shaun so I don’t know where that is coming from. Daryl, I would love to jump on with again. He has always been nothing but kind and respectful towards me and I think the two times we were on at the same time we complemented each other well. While we are on this subject let’s get something clear, and this has been bothering me for a while so might as well say it now; just because I am opinionated and female does not mean that I am emasculating no more than it means that because Daryl is opinionated and male then he must hate women. Seriously. Everyone get over that. Say you think he’s a jerk. Say you think I’m annoying, but seriously stop putting your insecurities on others. But this is the internet, so I’m probably wasting my time saying that.
Anywho, back to this “law of Rachel and Daryl” you want. Let me explain something, Paul picks his guest hosts based on 1) who he thinks would be good for that movie 2) who has the time to podcast on the movie when he’s ready to do it. If you want more of Daryl and me on together then please email Paul a polite request. Demanding that I only come on with Daryl to, I assume you mean but don’t want to say, keep me in check/my place is going to have the opposite reaction.
Everyone else, thanks for listening even though I know most of you liked the movie. Just because we didn’t like it doesn’t mean you can’t still like it. 🙂
Don’t worry Chris, even though she acts big and bad Rachel still makes my dinner every night and cleans the house like a proper woman should. I only let her out from doing laundry to podcast because she promised to not spend money on shoes for two entire weeks.I apologize that she talked too much. If this was a video podcast she wouldn’t have said a word because woman are meant to be seen, not heard. Also, sandwiches.
Seriously dude. We treat Rachel with respect because she’s a co-host. The stinger was just me being goofy because we hadn’t stopped recording. This whole notion of us being respectful to one another isn’t a bad thing. I don’t need approval from Rachel nor does Paul nor were we actively seeking it. We just all agree we didn’t care for the movie. If that is kowtowing to her whims than I think you need to seriously check yourself.
Also, Daryl is perhaps the least equipped podcast host to deal with Rachel. Just saying.
I saw Scott Pilgrim in the theaters a few weeks after it came out, largely because I accidentally bought tickets for Inception 3D and didn’t mean to so I got a refund and the old other movie starting around that time was Scott Pilgrim. This was a painful movie to see at pretty much every level for me, I echo Paul’s feelings about Michael Cera, and it says something that the most popular thing that came out of this movie was this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUEr0aFLY3E) featuring nothing but Cera getting punched in the face.
I actually find the massive amount of ladies I know who really like this movie disturbing for the same reasons, Scott Pilgrim is a horrible and reprehensible human being, which is fine, but the movie portrays him as a “nice guy” and as a person who we should all sympathize with and feel sorry for. There’s nothing good about his character, he learns nothing and doesn’t grow enough. I do agree that the Vegan Police was genuinely funny, I don’t know how much of that was in the original comic since I don’t want to waste my time with it, it was the only part of the movie that I thought was actually entertaining, so in a 2 hour movie, I found roughly, hmm, 10 minutes entertaining? Yeah, very much not worth it.
The most interesting part of this whole thing was actually the opening of the movie. Since it opened the same weekend as The Expendables it pretty much divided the entire internet, with Scott Pilgrim winning that ground big time. The Expendables beat it out gigantically at the box office, but what I found the most interesting was just how utterly worthless internet hype is. I think some actuary has probably figured out that internet hype is probably worth about $5 maybe? The rest of it seems to come from elsewhere, since Scott Pilgrim was THE movie talked about and how badly it bombed was a surprise to pretty much everyone (including me).
Erin Finnegan argues that this movie is made for people who are EXACTLY 30 years old, no more no less, she argues that any less and you don’t have enough life experience and anymore and you have had too much, or something like that. I don’t believe this for a bit, I think it’s for people who honestly think it’s OK to mistreat your significant other and want to get away with it but still be the “nice guy.”
As a side note: I love Speed Racer (another gigantic bomb at the box office) and I think that the frenetic editing style works for that movie, especially considering the source material, the editing style in this comes from Edgar Wright trying to make things as fast as possible…just because? I don’t know. I actually agree that the Seinfeld joke was totally unnecessary, unfunny and added nothing, in fact, most all of the references were unfunny or added nothing and were the equivalent of some Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer movie (the guys that made Epic Movie, etc..). They were often references for the sake of the audience seeing something that they think they like.
Just as a side note: I think it might also be that I don’t like Edgar Wright. He’s a competent filmmaker, but competence does not mean “good”. I saw both “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”, neither of which entertained me very much. Hot Fuzz was particularly guilty of just throwing out references with no real payoff. Doesn’t give me much hope for the Ant-man movie that he’s working on, although I did enjoy Tintin quite a bit.
Travis said:
“And I think the whole Scott Pilgrim thing could well be one of the prime examples of this quality that they cite: a work that focuses on self-absorbed assholes and is as much about references to video games and cartoons as it is about telling a story – in the case of the movie, moreso about the references than storytelling. It is, in a way, the quintessential work for the modern era; the problem lies in what that fact says about the era in question.”
Sums up the whole era for me to a T! Nothing currently out appeals to me at all.
Again, personally I am a fan of Edgar Wright’s work. Considering I grew up on the majority of the material in which Wright uses as references for his material, especially in the case of Hot Fuzz I just happen to find his sense of timing with his comedy spot on. Comedy for me is arguably the most subjective of film genres and as such I will admit to not being able to fully elaborate as to why I enjoy them, I just find his films amusing. Sometimes a spade is just a spade.
I’ll never understand the whole “hipster” deal either. I think I’ve been one long before it ever got re-coined to what it is today, simply by going to garage sales on hot, sweaty days!
I wasn’t complaining about Rachel. Don’t make this about you, lol. My comment was directed at the male hosts. I felt like they were trying not to say anything or admit to liking anything that might make them come across as sexist. Where as Daryl or Shaun (at least their internet personas) would have no problem saying whatever they felt regardless of it was appropriate. I can understand not wanting to look bad but at the same time there were mountains of comedy gold to be mined from this movie but it just degraded into complaining about how much of a jerk Scott was for 40 minutes.
Oh, fuck off with that noise. If you think that what I offered on this podcast was anything less than 100% my genuine opinions, you’ve got another thing coming. Comedy is extremely subjective, and if I don’t find it funny, I’m not going to pretend like I do for the sake of conversation. Stop trying to analyze my motivations and the motivations of my co-hosts. You’re not a mind-reader, and you’re wrong.
Open warning; I love the comic and whilst I agree the movie is not up to it’s standard I think it’s perfectly fine so you can just ignore me now and save yourself some time to go look at your floaters or something.
I’m fine with whatever criticism you may have of the movie (Scott’s behaviour towards Knives is certainly not laudable in the least and the movie has some basis in how Scott has made an ass of himself and those around him) but the story is not, ultimately, about how Scott overcomes his asshole phrase, as so delicately put, but how he can now begin that journey. He admits he has a problem symbolised by the fact that he does not destroy the Negascott.
His being an ass is a problem left unresolved unlike the Exes (fighting Roxy was even called “Airing their dirty laundry”) and though that admittance and unwillingness to bury his head in the sand he is allowed to go through that door of an uncertain, if not hopeful, future with Ramona.
Of course, by the time you got to the pee bar (a small visual gag) some twenty minutes in you had checked out for lunch so what am I to expect?
We’ve now reached the point in this thread in which we have had someone claim that Paul enjoys the sights of his own faeces….ladies and gentleman we have a new comment champion of ludicrousness right here. XD
In all seriousness, if the point is that Scott is beginning his journey, why does it take two hours of film to get there? That’s the sort of story I can see working in a sequential format, but with film the general rule of thumb is to begin at the most interesting or important part of the story you’re trying to tell.
I think the problem with the film is that it cut out some of what were narratively the most important parts of the comic in favor of getting to ‘the good stuff’ faster. Like the whole Nega Scott thing, that was a persistent theme in the comic, as was Scott having blackouts and period he couldn’t remember related to his previous breakup all culminating in him coming to the realization that he wasn’t actually a nice guy, and he had to accept that and grow as a person, and that takes place over like a 9 month period where he’s left almost entirely alone.
As for the door, it has a different meaning in the comics.
In short- Comics Scott is still bad, but not Michael Cera, he doesn’t get away scott free, and the point is he realizes how shit he was being and starts taking steps to correct that.
None of that happens in the movie. Which is a damn shame.
Chris: My bad on misinterpreting your comment. What you said is profoundly more stupid than what I thought you said. I’m reasonably sure that I thought the movie was misogynistic. Thinking back, yep, got it. I DID think the movie was misogynistic. Now contrary to what you think, I don’t think this is a funny movie. It has a couple of funny gags in it, but the number of jokes that completely fall flat far out number what I consider funny. I liked Scott Pilgrim the first time I saw it because of the film’s energy. Having seen it multiple times, I like it less each and every time. The protagonist is a shitty human being. I feel no empathy for him. I don’t care about him. I don’t see growth. That’s my opinion, not Rachel’s or Paul’s or anyone else’s. Please step into reality and realize that you have a movie that three people dislike for similar reasons. In the meantime, I will do my best to unroll my eyes.
Craig: I disagree with your premise. Scott Pilgrim is not at the beginning of character growth. He is supposed to have grown by the end of the film. I think the film does an incredibly poor job of showing his growth other than flashing that Scott Pilgrim has self respect on the screen. Just because the movie explicitly states that Scott has grown as a character doesn’t actually mean it has justified his growth. Furthermore, if your premise is true (that the point of Scott’s character arc is for him to realize that he’s been acting like an ass) the lack of any catharsis to the plot is a major flaw in the story. You either have to accept that this was supposed to be a story where Scott Pilgrim grows by the end (which I believe it does try to do and is very poor in showing it) or that you’ve spent two hours watching a guy be told by everyone that he’s an asshole only for him to realize in the last ten minutes that maybe he is a bit of an asshole which makes this a really pointless plot.
In general: dudes, there’s a ton of things I don’t like about this movie. I watched it and developed my own opinion as I watched it. This movie is visually entertaining. So are fireworks, lightning storms, lava lamps and magic eye puzzles. Beyond the visuals and a few of the gags, this movie is hot street trash.
I really enjoyed the movie, but appearently it really wasn’t for you and your co-hosts. Then again I really liked the Canadianisms and the nerd culture in it. I just take it as a cross between a surreal comic book world and real life in a surreal style. It was a film that broke rules in a way I enjoyed.
One interesting note on the film. It got a lot of buzz from San Diego Comic Con. This was the main reason I went to see it. I saw someone who has been going to Comic Con when it was focused on comics. He told me the fallout of Scott Pilgrim under performing was a decrease presence of films at Comic Con but TV shows filled in the void left by the films.
“He told me the fallout of Scott Pilgrim under performing was a decrease presence of films at Comic Con but TV shows filled in the void left by the films.”
I’ve heard this too, that the disaster of Scott Pilgrim basically made movies and especially NERD targeted movies much less of a thing in general.
Honestly, if Scott Pilgrim was what Hollywood thought that “nerd” films were, shallow movies about assholes we were supposed to care about, then, I’m find that Scott Pilgrim killed it quickly, not too much of a loss there.
The way I heard it, Scott Pilgrim got a huge push as SDCC in lieu of the traditional Hollywood marketing blitz. The idea was to plant the seeds at Comic Con and let word of mouth do the heavy-lifting in terms of the advertising. The reaction to the film at conventions was so positive that the studios were legitimately shocked when it failed to perform at the box office.
Wow, Paul! Got to say, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this much controversy in your discussions – now I need to listen to the show and see WTF you guys said.
Rachel – Tammy says “You Go, Girl!” 🙂
I hadn’t seen SCOTT PILGRIM because I was waiting for cable/Netflix/whatever – it looked too antic for antic’s sake to me (and I say this as someone who liked SHAUN OF THE DEAD, and really liked HOT FUZZ). Of course, I’m a generation older than its supposed target audience – to make me feel “hip” the movie would need lots of Bogart, STAR TREK and Groucho Marx references (since those where the Hipster Holy Trinity when I came of age in the early/mid Seventies).
Also – Michael Cera just bring out my Inner Cranky Old Man. I want to pull out a shotgun and tell him to Get Off My Lawn every time I see him.
I remember a dark day some years. Two movies were released in the same ; both of them were movies I greatly anticipated. One was a return of the great action flix of the 80’s and 90’s and the other looked liked a fun weird film based on a beloved comic. Stallone gave one of the greatest actions films ever with Rambo and now he promised a return to his former glory with a fun romp with his violent friends. What I got was a slap to my face with The Expendables. One of the worst shot Michael Bay wannabies with series of the crappiest action scenes captured on film. The action scenes were everything wrong with Bourne series if films with none of the character development of that series. Only one action sequence was worth my ticket price, the fight between Lundren and Li.
I was one morose MF, but I dragged myself to next film, Scott Pilgrim Vs the world. I to this day don’t know if I enjoyed SP because of the let down from The Expendables or because of the books. But Edgar Wright did one thing that put him above the Expendables; he constructed a coherent series of action films. Even if you like only the side characters of SP that was more then I enjoyed from The Expendables. Unfortunately I can not separate these two films as I saw them within twenty minutes of each other and I honestly have not been able to sit through either since that night. But hey love hearing you dissect this or any movie.
I want to thank Paul and his co-host to finally making me realize why I didn’t like this movie. When the movie first came out I heard it from Zac on the ANN podcast saying just how great and revolutionary (I think these are the words he used) the film was. I was on the fence with seeing it so I waited until I could rent it on Netflix. I have the same opinion with the hosts of this show except I didn’t like any character. The whole time I was thinking, “I knew someone like that in college. I also hated that person in college.” It just seems to smell of “hipsterdom” and I don’t find the attractiveness of it.
When talking with people that have seen the movie I see an age gap with it. Everyone that was a teenager through undergrad college age student seemed to like it and thought that it talked to them or that is something they were going through at the moment. Most people that were older than 28 hated the movie like me (for the record I’m 35). There were some exceptions to the rule but I really couldn’t figure it out until it was mentioned about the 21 year old maturity level in the podcast. I’m not using the exact words that were spoken in the podcast but I just felt that it was a maturity level or life experience that really determined if people liked this. I will also admit that I have only met one person in real life that has read Scott Pilgrim. He was 32 years old and liked the movie but everyone else I talked with hadn’t read the graphic novel. I’m just curious if people have the same experience or am I just an old fuddy-duddy?
Something I am thinking about this review is the portrayal of Wallace Wells in this movie. He is still my favourite character in the movie despite the predatory aspect of the character and still one of my favourite gay characters in mainstream movies. There is one thing about him is that he is the one who gets his life turned around the most by the end of the movie.
I think one of the main problems with media portrayals of gay characters still in mainstream media is they are all really going all the way to Jack harkness/Wallace Wells life of the party sassy gay guy.
Even in gay audience aimed media the predatory aspect seems to keep popping up – I was watching Vicious (New British Comedy series staring Sir Ian McKellen.) and the main joke running through it was McKellen’s character trying to hit on this younger guy.
@Paul – finally heard the podcast. Wow – Scott Pilgrim’s really an asshole, isn’t he? There’s a term for men like him that I kept hoping one of you would use – “Nice Guy(TM)”, the “nice guy” who isn’t a nice guy at all, but thinks he’s entitled to The Girl of His Dreams because he’s such a “nice guy”! Having had some of those tendencies myself when I was in my late teens/early Twenties, I’m kind of amazed every woman I was interested in then didn’t beat me to a bloody pulp….
There’s a panel item going around SF cons about “Fake Geekgirls” and what that says about the guys (and women) who say it. It was spurred by some some blog posts by SF Writer and outgoing SFWA President John Scalzi (REDSHIRTS, OLD MAN’S WAR) about male SF fans railing against women invading their Sacred Precincts – or women who do not putting out – and so on. If the Florida Anime Experience has a panel like that, it might be worth one of all of you getting on panel there – Tammy and I have both done these panels as SF cons, and they’re really worth attending/participating in!
@Scott John Harrison – I wonder of the portrayal of sexually hyperactive gay/bi men like Wallace Wells or Jack Harkness isn’t a bit like the Blaxploitation/Rap portrayal of Black men as superstuds who can seduce and pleasure any woman they want. In the determination not to show them as sexually ineffectual or asexual, the story overcorrects to the point where you could easily read those characters as “predatory”, rather than as “happily sexually active”….
I like the part of the podcast when you said that everybody that likes the movie is an asshole.
@oli I mean the little squiggles in your eye. Get your head out of the sewer, you putz.
@ConanThe3rd No. XD
I wouldn’t say that Scott Pilgrim relied on Comic-Con/the Internet “in lieu of” a heavy traditional marketing blitz. That approach had been tried four years prior with Snakes on a Plane, and it turned out that all the nerd Internet hype in the world amounted to about $15 million.
My recollection of this movie’s advertising is that it was massive and substantial. Multiple trailers, theaters adorned with individualized posters–as in one theater had 8 or 9 separate Scott Pilgrim posters, each devoted to a major character–TV spots, a videogame tie-in that received significant press due to it being hyped as not just the typical quick cash-in on account of its soundtrack and sprite animation providers, a short cartoon that aired on Adult Swim (when AS was still pretty big, at that) with voices provided by the film’s cast, and dedicated stands for the comics in bookstores and comic shops alike. Every gaming media outlet was swarmed with ads for the movie. All this went on for months prior to the film’s release
In other words, this movie got THE WORKS as far as marketing goes and I don’t think Universal held back in any way with regards to promoting the movie. The claim that “the movie just wasn’t advertised enough” is a little hard to believe. It’s pretty clear to me that people everywhere knew this movie existed and collectively decided “thanks, but no thanks.”
Stealing from the priceless comment at the top and being lazy enough to use the same repetitive phrase, “often when people… ” defend a movie of being sexist/racist etc, they’re assuming anything any podcaster says in a podcast is advocated as their dead serious opinion and not just a ranting entertaining comment to keep the listener from being bored. James Bond used to be sexist and racist, it goes with the character and a lot of macho homo erotic 80’s bs was full of sexism and misogyny, they were still entertaining. From listening to the greatest movie ever podcast it’s kinda obvious that even goober & friends have intentional sexist or racist humour in some podcasts and they also make a lot of fun of themselves. Come on Vanilla Sagat, you’ve gotta know ’bout that or was it particularly calling Scott Pilgrim vs. The World sexist that made you go all gaga about it? Don’t let that bother you, it’s just a movie.
Wow, people’s comments are f-n harsh, haha and pathetically funny. Do people always get their panties in a twist like that or was it about this flick. Come to think of it, I kinda prefer when goober &c:o doesn’t like the movie being reviewed.
Quite frankly we must leave this sordid business behind us and bask in the glow of a true cinematic masterpiece:
Well, Invid Ninja, I think we can all agree that sitting before the glory that is ROADHOUSE is an improvement over SCOTT PILGRIM – for one thing, ROADHOUSE has 100% less John Cena Michael Cera –
Actually, SCOTT PILGRIM starring John Cena, and all the Seven Evil Exes being played by pro wrestlers, might be kind of awesome.
PS: DAMN WordPress for not having a strikethrough tag! Sort of kills the joke of crossing out John Cena’s name….
In my opinion, the film could have done better in terms of box office, if they just did not cast Michael Cera as the lead of the film. As said this before: Cera is a character actor, not leading man. Also, at the time of the release, there was already a strong anti-Michael Cera backlash with the general public.
The “manga” was ok. When it originally came out the whole self-referential “geek culture rules” meme really was not the bewildering phenomena it was when the movie finally did come out.
The first book or so was like “oh this seems fun, how novel” but by the time you got to the last 3 or whatever books you realized that it was kind of a waste of time.
Michael Cera was the absolutely wrong choice for Scott and did not play the character right at all. In the “manga” Scott is a ditzy/pretty-boy/sloth. The Michael Cera character™ is always a shy/insecure/passive-aggressive fuckhead.
**Warning: Anecdotal Generalizations**
Scott is a jerk and it makes absolutely perfect sense that he has a ton of girls in love with him. Jobless? A Mooch? Dumb? Skinny Prettyboy? Women (18-28) eat those kinds of dudes up. When guys like that are ditzy and seemingly sweet, they will proclaim him to be a “nice guy.”
Agreed on the miscasting of Michael Cera. In my personal opinion, he’s not a match for Scott at all, and it shows in his performance.
And one thing on the apparent box office failure of the movie: the movie is basically high camp for the video game generation, like a Batman ’66 for nerds. Looking at the trailers, it could be hard for a person who eats up po-faced blockbusters to look at all the visual gags and cartoony effects and not be turned off by it.
“And one thing on the apparent box office failure of the movie: the movie is basically high camp for the video game generation, like a Batman ’66 for nerds. Looking at the trailers, it could be hard for a person who eats up po-faced blockbusters to look at all the visual gags and cartoony effects and not be turned off by it.”
Well at least I didn’t have to see none of it, but a shame to think of what status that will take up in another 20-30-40 years. I’ll have to be prepared for that.
Funny I don’t know much about Michael Cera at all, yet I see in his early career he played Brother Bear in The Berenstain Bears (a Canadian-produced series that aired on PBS 10 years back), that’s why I get for reading comments posts on YouTube.
I believe Rachel is correct about the author’s background informing Scott’s racial comments in the breakup, but would speculate that anyone with East Asian relatives would also be familiar with a certain clannishness that can preclude extraracial couplings. In my own experience, I’ve run into friction dating some girls for this. Sometimes it’s racism, but other times it’s just difficult to integrate an “outsider” into the ethnic conventions of the traditionally minded.
Nowadays, we’re all “white” people, but a century or so ago similar excitement might have fraught our own outsider liasons.
I personally didn’t have any problem with any of the casting. I’m not sure who else you would cast as Scott Pilgrim other than Michael Cera.In the most positive reading of the film, Scott Pilgrim is a cool nerd in a band that has been in several bad relationships. I remember when I first heard about this film’s casting, I thought Cera as Scott Pilgrim was in the same vein as casting Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier.
As far as the box office goes, as much as Hollywood (and us in general) want to believe, the nerds may influence where the current pop culture goes but not control it. Scott Pilgrim’s box office failure was just misreading the temperature in the room.