Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Post Release - Page 7

Back in the day, Alfred Hitchcock stymied meddlesome producers with "jigsaw shooting" that couldn't be cut any other way. And I guess Coppola pioneered pre-viz, which automates that approach. What's interesting is that virtually every other major comedy out this year has gone the other way, with narratives culled from massive coverage and alternate takes.

Also, in chop socky kung-fu movies from the 70's, they'd edit fights in camera, to save time and money.

Lol I didn't catch the name before. That's funny.

I'm generally not a fan of coverage*. I know it makes everyone's job easier, but other than wide shots they can cut back to, the idea of working things out with other methods is amazing to me. Granted, it usually costs a ton, or takes forever, or both. (see also: Drunken Master 2, Kill Bill)

Wright did some amazing action work. I'm sure he(and his fight/stunt crew), is proud.

*edit- major disadvantage? They can get a lot that doesn't cut together and require massive reshoots. But Wright is smarter than that I think.

That's odd -- we know there's at least one scene that was cut: Scott meeting Knives on the bus. There's shots from it in the commercials. I as hoping there was more.

I spotted a moment or two amongst the remix videos. Nothing major, though.

Chirs Evans was my favorite part of the film. New Man Crush

Actually more like Cera often resembles a super cute nerdy chick in drag, but essentially, yeah, this.

Would smash?

In terms of the performances, I think Culkin steals the picture. He actually manages to project something of a presence, which none of the other actors pull off for me.

I dunno, I think Routh has presence.

That reminds me. I think Ramona Flowers is a really boring character. I'm not going to blame Winstead, nor am I going to blame the comics (which I've not read), I am going to blame Edgar Wright.

Yeah, yeah, Flowers is supposed to be "mysterious" and all that, but mysteries should be interesting, no? Instead she's like a faded xerox of Clementine Kruczynski. In the end it seems to me to be a primarily thankless role that echoes Kate Ashfield's role in Shaun of the Dead. We care only because the hero cares.

Routh, Evans, Schwartzman, Aubrey Plaza, and Alison Pill are all pretty great. So I disagree with Cuchulain on that.

I'm not saying she's the most interesting character in the world but what of Clementine do you see in her beyond blue hair?

Actually, it is just the hair, but the hair is used to serve/suggest similar character points, mostly a certain flightiness.

So, did anyone pick out all the numbers in the set dressings that signify each Evil Ex? I tried to spot them all on my second viewing, but never saw a "one" for Patel, or a "five" and "six" for the Katayanagi Twins (the light-up dragon logo on the front of their synthesizer suite I guess resembled a five).

But the two, three, four and seven(s) were all plain as day.

I'm sort of baffled that Knives was ever going to end up with Scott, given that she's still 17 fucking years old. They make a big deal about how it's, y'know, illegal. And yeah, you can have her turn 18 like in the comics, but how does that really change anything?

I thought the age of consent in Canada was 16?

In terms of character arcs that ending projects the same message of maturity and self-acceptance in a different format. Rather than the single-beam message of overcoming/accepting your past and moving on, you get three separate currents. Ramona's is largely the same, if more bittersweet. Scott's is tweaked so that he embraces who he is and decides to try being honest with somebody he's hurt to salvage some of his past. Knives gets a relationship where she's not just a cloud of adoration, but rather on par with Scott himself in terms of maturity.

Which was true of their initial relationship, actually. I found it to be one of the least creepy relationship age-gaps.

So I saw it twice yesterday, once with the family and once with friends in the evening.

I'll have to let the movie sit with me longer, but I'm not prepared to say this is Edgar Wright's best film yet. For me, I related far more to SHAUN OF THE DEAD. The friendship with Ed, Shaun's relationship problems, and just the general tempo of it make me love it more than SCOTT PILGRIM. That's not to say I didn't love SCOTT PILGRIM at all - it's still a hell of a movie - but it's just right now I prefer SHAUN.

I loved Kieran Culkin the most out of all the characters, I think, and Knives out of the girls. She has an enthusiasm about her that I really enjoyed. I loved the final battle - "Scott has found the power of self-respect!" killed me - and every actor and actress works the hell out of their character. Brandon Routh really deserves to work more. "Chicken isn't vegan?" The soundtrack rocked, the score rocked.

I can't articulate it - maybe the film was overhyped for me. Lord knows I read everything about the movie I could get my hands on his past week. Everyone adores this movie, and I do too, but there's something that's keeping me disconnected from the film that I can't explain why.

I dunno, why aren't I happier about the movie? It's not as though I loved it, I did, it's just not one that's sticking with me. I prefer it to HOT FUZZ, but SHAUN for me still is the standard.

I saw the similarities in the characters and presentation, but I didn't read her almost-weekly hair dyings as flightiness or instability as in Eternal Sunshine. Clementine's problem was never that she wasn't comfortable with herself, it's that Joel and she weren't accepting of each other after a certain point. I'd say Ramona's hair changes are more indicative of her not being sure who she is while she constantly runs from her past.

A random thought: I've always believed that using Zelda music in a film would go beyond the novelty of hearing the reference and work as a piece of film music. And hearing it in this film, it completely works but I also got the geek Pavlovian response at the cue also.

I'm kind of curious is to which chewers who saw this were older than say 35 and if they were able to relate. I do think this film plays better to younger audiences.

SCOTT PILGRIM struck me as being the kind of film Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would have put together had they been handed a budget. An absurd spectacle full of fanboy touchstones and a sense of humor infatuated with non-sequiturs.

I'm 41 but I think I caught everything. But I've been thinking about it a lot.

Relationships aren't combat. Now, saying something like that may seem like I'm simplifying the film, but hear me out.

All the relationships of the film seemed to be based on combat in that it wasn't a mutual thing but what one person could take advantage out of another person. Even Ramona wasn't interested in who Scott was but was just interested in something that had less drama than her previous relationships. Scott did the same with Knives. And Envy, once she was through with Scott, tossed him aside.

But from my experience in my life, I came to the conclusion long ago that relationships aren't combat. It's not about points being scored. And at 23, I can see how that a self-centered person would only be interested in gaining something over another person, but at 41, I'm confortable in my relationship with my wife and not trying to one-up anyone that the lessons of this film are pretty much a vague memory. In the end, Scott and Ramona and even Knives learn that, but it's a lesson long ago that I learned, and that might be my frustration with the movie. I'm not trash talking it at all - it's an amazing movie and I'm likely going to buy the Blu-Ray - but I think I'm really outside the range of effectiveness for this movie. The lessons of SCOTT PILGRIM aren't any kind of revelation to me.

I have to admit, I'm not even 30 and even then, I distinctly felt like I was outside of the demographic for this film (I actually may have been the oldest person there that night, which is fucking depressing).

At 27 I think I was definitely at the extreme end of the range at the showing I went to as well, actually. It's kind of weird, someone much younger than me isn't old enough to remember some of the things the movie refers to, but I too feel like I'm actually outside the target audience and I suspect that's part of my negative reaction to the movie (as I said before, I like all the bits, and I got the references... It just doesn't come together for me). About seven or eight years ago I would have appreciated it more, I think, but like Nordling this view of relationships doesn't have much to do with my experience anymore.

I still feel like I ought to like it more than I do, though. So many good elements, skillfully handled.

It's not about catching or being privy to all the references. It just may be that you are now at a point in your life where can't relate to the issues and themes of the film. It is not that they're false or hollow but that you've moved past that in your life and just don't care anymore.

I think that was what you were trying to say in your post.

Yeah, it wasn't a specific filmmaker I was thinking of. I now distinctly remember watching a documentary on the subject.

So I'm trying to get my older film nerd friends to go see this by comparing it to Woody Allan. Hope it works and they don't beat me up afterwards.

I'll be 41 in about a week-- my formative gaming experience was the Atari 2600, and while that's not typical for my demo it does shut me out of the film's Nintendo vibe. But I can totally relate to being a jerk to one girl because I was fixated on another girl at the time, and the travails of struggling musicians ("All our shows are secret...") are pretty timeless.

I think the movie ultimately indicates that relationships aren't a battle. I think part of the idea is that Scott learns his battling of the Evil Exes does not win him Ramona, and that he ultimately realizes he should do it just because it's the right thing to do. Remember, the power of self-respect trumps the power of love.

Once the playing field is leveled, he starts over from square one with a better idea of what a relationship really is. No?

Yes.

I don't think this was a perfect film, and Edgar Wright's last two were, so I understand if many (myself included) set the bar too high for him to reach here, but seriously, even video game references aside, this is such a visually inventive and clever movie and so goddamned fucking funny, I don't think age should be as much of a factor as it seems to be (at least it seems to be for the critics).

Oh yeah, I agree completely. I'm just saying those are things I figured out a while back, and although the movie's fun, and visually amazing, I just don't embrace this movie like others do.

I wonder if people over 35 can relate to a film where the hero wears TWO Smashing Punpkins shirts and where almost all the game references are to titles from the 80s.

Do you mean people under 35? Because I'm 39, and I was square into Pumpkin's original demographics when they were big in the mid-'90s, and having been a teenager in the '80s, those game references were also right up my alley. Where as someone, say, 10 years younger might still get those, but may not have experienced those things at their zeitgeist.

I see what you did there.

I'm in the under 30 crowd, and I think the resonance the movie will find amongst those in their 20's is going to be drawn from the hyper-nostalgia that defined so much of the last ten years or so. Even if a big chunk of that nostalgia was for things that had never been experienced in their original formats. The obvious shot here is at the Hot Topic crowd, but it was far more prevalent than that. Getting caught up in the past is a timeless tradition, but I imagine it was never embraced and monetized so well as for anybody who was a teen at some point in the previous decade. In that way Scott Pilgrim is weirdly apt for that niche, even though I believe it has a broader appeal.

I think the main thing that's ticking off the negative reviewers isn't the specific references but the fact that, with two or three cameotic exceptions, there are no characters (and precious few actors) over 30 in the film at all.

i'm 35 and i loved this movie.

as far as ramona flowers not being interesting enough, i dont think that matters much. Scott doesnt fall in love with her cause of her personality, it was looks first. Ramona had enough interest to keep the movie going to the finish.

on a side note, the soundtrack works in the movie but outside of it, seems dull

Hey man I'm not trying to condescend or make some declaration here but there are a lot of older reviewers (not you) who don't seem to get the film. I'm just curious if it's a generational thing. Thirty-five was probably way too low.

The FIRST thing he notices about her is that she appears in his dreams and he assumes she has some significance to him because of that and holy shit I just made an Inception Connection.

I'm in a weird place where I now might have to concede that Shaun is my least favorite of Wright's films. By the slimmest fucking margin, though.
Also, I just turned 42 and absolutely loved Pilgrim and still related to his experience quite a bit.

Possible controversial theory: maybe this film plays better with single people than marrieds, regardless of age?

I needed a restroom break right after the first battle. Is this where I missed a Seinfeld reference? If so then I guess my second ticket is ought for that alone.

I think so. After the Patel fight there's the scene on the bus that was in all the trailers. Ramona agrees that they're in a relationship, and once back at the apartment happy Scott plays Wacky Neighbor to Wallace's 'straight man'. I think.

I'm 41 and I loved it (though not as much as "Shaun", which is perfect). I'm sure there are plenty of video game references that went over my head, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of the characters and the overall energy of the movie. There's a lot to love here. You don't have to be into videogames to appreciate the greatness of Scott's window exit, the Seinfeld sequence, or the choreography of the fights.

People are getting too caught up in the references. I'm 43, saw it with people ranging from early 30s to 51, ran into friends over 50 coming out who saw it. Everybody loved it. Some were into the references. The older ones just got caught up in the energy of it and enjoyed it. The thing has value beyond being a film full of references.

I have this inverse relationship going on with Wright's films. If I were being completely honest, I would say that Shaun is Wright's strongest film. Then Hot Fuzz. Then Scott Pilgrim.

But in terms of which films of his films hit that sweet spot below the knees... the order goes in reverse. I've never been much into the horror/zombie genre. I love the action genre. And I grew up with the language that Scott Pilgrim uses to tell its story.

So in the end, it balances out. All fantastic films I will love and own.

Yeah, I saw this under same circumstances as Prankster - maybe even the same theatre - and I was pretty damn happy with it. I hope Wright & Co. hold their heads high. This was a terrible weekend to kick this off with Stallone and Roberts. It sorta pisses me off how so many folks are dancing on this film's grave. In a year or two SP will still stand up while Expendables will be relegated to the shit heap.

Yep, I'm 45 and I think I got pretty much all of it, and I loved it.

So, anybody else re-watching Spaced now? It's amazing how Wright's style was already totally established there.

This movie is so good it makes me feel guilty for having worked on The Expendables. Wow, that was great.

Turned 44 the day I saw Scott Pilgrim and I loved it! (the film, not getting older). I do think the poster above had it right....if you are single you may be more in tune with this film than if you are married.

It annoys me more to wonder how many more people would have seen this film if it was basically the exact same but did not star Michael Cera. Tell that to the fellow B-Action denizens!