CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Post Release - Page 9

post #401 of 1230
8/16/10 at 1:38pm
For me, what is so charming about the Wallace Wells character is that he could have so easily slipped into the stereotypical role of "The Wise Black Man" from so many films of the '90s, but that is almost immediately diffused by giving him a sex life. He can be gay and show it and damn all those homophobes.
Reply
post #402 of 1230
8/16/10 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I've seen the film twice and missed the Phantom stuff both times. Where was it?
The sheer amount of closeups of actors speaking in front of limbo black, for one. The split screens are a faint echo of Phantom's compositions. The minimalist set moments (Ramona's door). Mostly just visual riffs. And Gideon Graves is basically Swan, updated for the churrens.
Reply
post #403 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I've seen the film twice and missed the Phantom stuff both times. Where was it?
I'm thinking its more generally just the way he's using his camera and editing. The extensive us of split-screen for instance. Of course, its been a while since I've seen any of Phantom, so maybe there's more specific stuff I'm missing too.
Reply
post #404 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:10pm
Where was the One Year Later reference? At the Chaos Theater? It was odd that it mentioned Knives was having a birthday dinner, but then never mentioned she was now 18 and no longer such "forbidden fruit" (though age of consent is 16 in Toronto so perhaps she was never so forbidden).
Reply
post #405 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:13pm
I didn't catch a year milestone mention either, but my projection was off (all the "power up" stuff in the lower left of the screen was cut in half, for example) so if it was via text I could have missed it.
Reply
post #406 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:16pm
I'm pretty certain there was never a ONE YEAR LATER thing in this movie. In two viewings, I never got any sense of that, nor did I notice it as a joke.
Reply
post #407 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I'm pretty certain there was never a ONE YEAR LATER thing in this movie. In two viewings, I never got any sense of that, nor did I notice it as a joke.
It's a bad misinterpretation of Envy's call. He must have missed that the cast refers to the breakup being a year in the past in the beginning of the film. That call actually establishes the opposite of what he thinks it does, i.e. that the film has taken place over a very short period of time.
Reply
post #408 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:23pm
Yeah, I thought that's what it was too. But in the COOKIE DOUGH thread, I got the impression that the writer of the article actually saw some title-card or visual representation of a year passing.
Reply
post #409 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurtmandersen View Post
Because I'm 42 and really enjoyed Scott Pilgrim and did 'get' the jokes about video games, movies, TV shows and music... does that make me immature or just an average geek?
I'm also 42, married, have a 9-year-old kid, and I got all the video game jokes. And I will accept both the immature and average geek labels.

Mostly the "immature" one because I giggled so much at the Jackass 3D trailer, and my wife said, "Why do you like that? It's so juvenile." To which I responded, "You like 'Grease 2' and 'The Pirate Movie'. Don't talk to me about juvenile." Well, I said that in my mind. But I almost said it out loud.

I really enjoyed it, and I want to go see it again, along with Inception. Talk about two ends of the movie spectrum. These are the only two films this summer I've wanted to see twice.
Reply
post #410 of 1230
8/16/10 at 2:59pm
Two ends of the spectrum, but both movies that treat emotional resolution as action scenes.
Reply
post #411 of 1230
8/16/10 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Yeah, I thought that's what it was too. But in the COOKIE DOUGH thread, I got the impression that the writer of the article actually saw some title-card or visual representation of a year passing.
I thought the same, but in that thread the Nunz said you were wrong. Perhaps he just wants to kick you in the balls though.
Reply
post #412 of 1230
8/16/10 at 3:58pm
Oh, did Nick direct that at me? I thought it was toward the post right above his.
Reply
post #413 of 1230
8/16/10 at 4:14pm
Pretty sure it was directed at the post above his.
Reply
post #414 of 1230
8/16/10 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Cellophane View Post
There's a great article over at NPR about the way reviewers have been reviewing the audience and not the film. I particularly liked this quote:
Jeff M got it on Page 3. But yes, it's the most intelligent response to the negative reviews I've seen. Over on the AV Club, both the pro and con opinions really missed the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post
Two ends of the spectrum, but both (Inception and Scott Pilgrim) treat emotional resolution as action scenes.
Also, both films feature characters entering each others' minds. And the dreamers making decisions based on the assumption that they really dreamed those encounters.
Reply
post #415 of 1230
8/16/10 at 5:11pm
Probably been mentioned before, but one of my favorite stylistic things about the movie was the seemingly infinite number of constantly shifting aspect ratios, all of which just served to improve the framing of all of the shots. Actually, its the closest thing I've seen in a film to reading the panels on a page, in terms of the way the different shapes and sizes effect the feeling of the shot.
Reply
post #416 of 1230
8/16/10 at 6:26pm
The more I think about the movie, the more my favorite moment is "Scott Has Learned The Power Of Self-Respect!" I admire a movie that says flat out that love don't mean shit if you can't man up and take responsibility for yourself.
Reply
post #417 of 1230
8/16/10 at 6:48pm
some great hate here.
Reply
post #418 of 1230
8/16/10 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Oh, did Nick direct that at me? I thought it was toward the post right above his.
Ah, never mind. I thought that was you, and I misinterpreted the post anyway. Hadn't had my coffee yet.
Reply
post #419 of 1230
8/16/10 at 6:56pm
"A movie has never been this blatant, this outrageous, this nonchalant about women as trophies, as prizes for men who do heroic deeds!"

Here's someone who kinda missed the point.
Reply
post #420 of 1230
8/16/10 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_adam View Post
Dunno who's behind that one, but the "owning the hatred" schtick gives the whole thing a Kevin Smith vibe to which this movie should never have to stoop.
Reply
post #421 of 1230
8/16/10 at 7:21pm
it's from the bad review revue. The views expressed within do not reflect the views of mr_adam, his family, friends, pets or their parasites.
Reply
post #422 of 1230
8/16/10 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeShaynePI View Post
"A movie has never been this blatant, this outrageous, this nonchalant about women as trophies, as prizes for men who do heroic deeds!"

Here's someone who kinda missed the point.
Here's a quote from that review I linked to a few posts back:

Quote:
It’s all a wankoff fanboy wish fulfillment, telling scrawny losers that it’s OK to treat their women like shit if something “better” comes around. The only thing Scott Pilgrim vs. the World proves is that nerds can be just as shallow and mean-spirited as bullies.
Seriously, how can you NOT think this person didn't see the movie?
Reply
post #423 of 1230
8/16/10 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I've seen the film twice and missed the Phantom stuff both times. Where was it?
Both films climax with the hero and villain battling over the girl in a crowded rock performance palace.

And Winstead reminded me a bit of Jessica Harper with that voice, but I might be reaching there.
Reply
post #424 of 1230
8/16/10 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
Here's a quote from that review I linked to a few posts back:



Seriously, how can you NOT think this person didn't see the movie?
Yeah, what the fuck. Should they have not forgiven Scott and hated him forever after he apologized to both of them and took the blame for everything? Fuck. Sounds like a really bitter woman.
Reply
post #425 of 1230
8/16/10 at 8:59pm
Saw it today and loved it. Everyone involved in this film should take a bow for not only getting this film made but for making a faithful adaptation that is also completely successful on its own merits. I honestly wondered whether or not the heart of the comic could be captured while still retaining all of the peripheral aspects that made it unique. That however was never really a problem because of the strength of the performances.

The cast was uniformly fantastic. I was especially pleased with Allison Pill's performance of Kim (one of my favorite characters in the comic). There were a few bits from the comic that I wish had made it into the movie but overall I was pleased with what did make it in.

My theater was mostly empty but the film seemed to play well with those who were there. The biggest laugh in my theater came when Scott jumped through the window to avoid Knives.



I can't wait for the Blu-Ray to see the deleted scenes and the original ending.
Reply
post #426 of 1230
8/16/10 at 11:59pm
Question: Wright directed this after Star Trek, correct? 'Cause good God, does some of that cinematography look familiar!
Reply
post #427 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:05am
I think whichever reviewer referred to the "passing year" must've freshened up their review with details from the last graphic novel, in which Ramona is gone for around a year before the finale at Chaos. The graphic novels play out –in general- at a much more realistic pace that really sets them apart from the adaptation, and I quite like that.
Reply
post #428 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Question: Wright directed this after Star Trek, correct? 'Cause good God, does some of that cinematography look familiar!
Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if Wright wanted this shot in the style of Star Trek (2009)?
Reply
post #429 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:18am
Certain shots sure seem like it. Dramatic lense flares and the like. It's if he was looking over Abram's shoulder and thought, "Hmmmmmm, y'know..."
Reply
post #430 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:30am
I didn't even notice similarities. Maybe the final battle at Gideon's club. Lots of swooping shots too. A coincidence, methinks.
Reply
post #431 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:30am
It's more like your understanding of cinematography reaches back about three years.
Reply
post #432 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Certain shots sure seem like it. Dramatic lense flares and the like. It's if he was looking over Abram's shoulder and thought, "Hmmmmmm, y'know..."
I must disagree. The styles aren't very similar at all. Many films have lens flares.
Reply
post #433 of 1230
8/17/10 at 12:56am
Both movies have titles that begin with the letter 'S'. Trying to come up with other comparison points.
Reply
post #434 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:05am
I don't even remember lens flare.
Reply
post #435 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:05am
I think there were some in Scott's dream/death desert world.
Reply
post #436 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
It's more like your understanding of cinematography reaches back about three years.
Weird pot shot -- didn't say Star Trek invented the damn things. Chill out man, it's not an attack on anyone, just saying the similarities are striking.
Reply
post #437 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:09am
Not really.
Reply
post #438 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Weird pot shot -- didn't say Star Trek invented the damn things. Chill out man, it's not an attack on anyone, just saying the similarities are striking.
I can say without hesitation there was nothing about SP's cinematography that brought about any thought of ST's cinematography.

However, I am interested in what you saw that made you think of ST. Would you mind listing a couple scenes?
Reply
post #439 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:13am
Yeah, I've heard people go "there was lens flare all over this movie" and I'm completely clueless to what they're talking about. I think the desert scenes might have had an occasional one? It was barely noticeable and whenever it was supposedly used in this movie, it must have felt (been) a completely natural effect.
Reply
post #440 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:14am
Absolutely -- they were there. That you all don't notice them is a testament to the director's skill. The first fight probably used them the most. Is the defensiveness because everyone bitched about it in Star Trek? Well relax, I thought they were used well here, so it's not some Trojan horse way of insulting the film or anything...
Reply
post #441 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:16am
Not at all. I love ST's cinematography. But the styles between these two aren't the same.
Reply
post #442 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:19am
Stylistically no, I was only talking about the flares. Do watch out for them, 'cause they are all over the thing (the battles, anyway).

EDIT: I liked your second edit better, about how SP used them more effectively. The response above is for the first one.
Reply
post #443 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:24am
I noticed that Edgar moved his camera. You know who else moved his camera? Kubrick. Verrrrry interesting.
Reply
post #444 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Stylistically no, I was only talking about the flares. Do watch out for them, 'cause they are all over the thing (the battles, anyway).
Neither are the lens flares now that I think about it. SP is more about "stage" type flares and digitally creating flares with the effects. The practical or in camera flares seem the result of stage type lighting the draws focus to the battles. The ST ones are just popping up all over the place, although decidedly and intently placed.

They exist, but I'm still not sure I see the connection to ST.
Reply
post #445 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:25am
There are lens flares in each of the fight scenes and none in any of the scenes in between. I don't know what that has to do with Star Trek, but he did use them to a cool effect in the movie.

ETA: I was going to ask if McTiernan saw Star Trek before making Die Hard but it was a dumb joke.
Reply
post #446 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:33am
Perhaps reviews like the ones linked in the NPR piece have made some a bit defensive about... everything.

The look (and only the look) of the flares is very in line with what Star Trek did, despite the fact that (yes) it has been done before. These flares look quite different from Die Hard. While others find it utterly inconceivable that he learned a thing or two, or was influenced at all from Abrams, I think it might (just might) have happened. If he did, he put it to better use than his mentor.
Reply
post #447 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:40am
I'm irrationally defensive about all things Scott Pilgrim, but I think Star Trek is just when a lot of movie fans noticed lens flares for the first time and are now aware of them. Edgar basically used every camera trick in the book, lens flares included.
Reply
post #448 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:42am
I disagree with putting it to use better. The only similarity I see at all is in the way the lens flare stretches across the screen. Abrams and Mindel also flood the screen with flares that do more than just stretch horizontally across the screen. But that's cool that it reminded you of ST.
Reply
post #449 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:45am
Okay, here's something that'll back me up: take another look at this Scott Pilgrim trailer. In about 90% of the shots taken from action scenes, a flare is present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOLmjhxVVU


Proof that I'm not just making some weird connection in my head, no? There's a lot of it, guys.
Reply
post #450 of 1230
8/17/10 at 1:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. Smith View Post
I think whichever reviewer referred to the "passing year" must've freshened up their review with details from the last graphic novel, in which Ramona is gone for around a year before the finale at Chaos. The graphic novels play out –in general- at a much more realistic pace that really sets them apart from the adaptation, and I quite like that.
She's gone for a couple of months, tops.

Scott meets Knives for the first time on her 17th birthday, and she turns 18 just prior to the very beginning of Volume 6. The whole story takes place in just a little over a year.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Post Release