Scott Pilgrim Vs The World

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a movie based on the graphic novel made by Bryan Lee O' Malley, "Scott Pilgrim." In the movie, Scott (played by Michael Cera) meets the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. But to win her, he must fight her 7 evil exes.

This movie is about a bass player? That was their first mistake.

Just The Facts

  1. Scott Pilgrim is played by Micheal Cera
  2. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World was directed by Edgar Wright
  3. Edgar Wright also directed Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz
  4. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World was a box office flop
  5. Shaun of the Dead was a better movie

This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

"Scott Pilgrim Vs The World" was supposed to be a genre defining, hipster, comic book movie. Universal Studios spent $60,000,000 making the movie, and untold millions marketing the movie. In total, the movie only made back 45 million dollars in box office draws

. Yeah vampire Pihanhas

"Vampire Piranhas awesome!"

The main problem is that no one came out to see the movie. On its opening weekend Scott pilgrim was beaten by "Piranha 3D" and " Vampires Suck," just to name a few. How could this be?

Universal Studios sent out a marketing blitz to promote this movie. Everything from video games, to ComicCon, to animated shorts.

A lot of people are going to say that it is the fanbase's fault for not turning out in bigger numbers, and that they are fat and lazy nerds. That's just not true. The fact of the matter is, "Scott Pilgrim Vs the World" wasn't that great of a movie.

Let's accept for a second that the movie was poorly acted by the lead Michael Cera; or maybe even that he might not have been the best person for the job. Not to say he's not a good actor, but he seems to portray the same character in every movie. A low self esteem, nerdy, or akward 18-25 year old.

Let's also accept that the movie left a lot of back story out from the graphic novel. Back story that would have made the characters seem less one-dimensional, and also explain a few things. Like for instance, why Scott Pilgrim is so good at fighting (which is never mentioned in the movie). He is good at fighting because he learned it from playing video games sooo much. Also the fact that the movie only really appeals to a very specific demographic of people who have read the graphic novel or even like grafic novels

Here's what really happened: The writers and director were able to, at the same time, alienate the core fanbase of Scott Pilgrim by saying "Source material? I can do it better," and The general public at large by making a movie that seems like some sort of inside joke between the writers and the core fans. They also created a movie with so many jump shots that you'd have to be diagnosed with A.D.H.D. to understand what's going on. They left out so much sub-plot that unless you read the graphic novel, a lot of things seemed completely random.

It should be noted that the movie wasn't entirely bad. It did avoid a lot of things, that for instance, " The Last Airbender" did wrong. None of the characters were really changed that much (except Scott Cer... I mean Pilgrim). The plot of the movie, although thinned out , was not left behind like it was in " Dragonball Evolution." The special effects and some of the art direction were good. The style used should be utilized in movies of this genre more often. Point being, despite being a poor movie over all it certainly wasn't the worst movie ever.

If Hollwood wants to get people out to see movies like this, they need to put a bit more effort into making it seem appealing to eveyone. (Like perhaps not leaving out important backgound information.) There are many movies that do that. Of course this would have lenghtened the movie a little bit, but with movie tickets costing upwards of $10, I think it's a risk we can take. Secondly, Edgar Wright needs to stop with the jump cuts, damn it. It's cool for a while, but at a certain point it makes the movie seem unorganized and poorly written.

In summary, it was an ok movie with cool effects and a subpar story.