ChrisMoses
-
Posts
830 -
Joined
-
I could never rock that curly hair.
I'm taking it personally in the sense that it's a property (book, game, movie) that I really enjoy and would like others to at least give it a chance. My biggest motivator in many of my responses begins with being purely baffled that people on a videogame board aren't at least interested in what has been called the most effective videogame movie ever made. -
He's signed on for the movie since then I believe.
So... Cera can't act, but those critical were lining up to see The Expendables, certainly a pinnacle of the theater arts. -
Quote:Critics are just people that are paid to watch and talk about movies. They have seen more, and it is their job to enjoy them. I've never shrugged off a critic's opinion. I may not always agree with it (and there are still quite a few negative criticisms against SP I can disagree with), but I can still respect their stance and am willing to hear them out.Originally Posted by UltraTroll
Wait, let me get this straight. This seems to be a recurring theme for the Scott Pilgrim crowd here.
Scott Pilgrim did not make money so that makes it better? Huh? What? Is that not what the critics say to promote some lousy film that they only want to watch?
My stance on saying it is a better movie is for the more nuanced things it can do for the entire industry. If the movie does well enough, it could mean more adaptations to niche properties in the future, which I'm on board for.
I think the movie also did more for "cinema" than the Expendables. Scott Pilgrim tried a lot of new things in its presentations. The Expendables was unabashedly a movie that could have been made 20 years ago.
Good point regarding the OP. But most will go on the broad thread title alone, which is why a lot of these debates have carried on for pages now.Quote:What we enjoy does not always mesh. I know people that hate Star Wars: A New Hope.
I saw both and Expendables to me was the better movie. I was more entertained and enjoyed it more than Scott Pilgrim.
We are all forgetting what the thread started by BlackArachnia is about.
Well, the answer to the Question that started this all this is what we would see.Quote:Originally Posted by BlackArachniaWell both movies launch on the same date. That's going to require some people to make some choices. Me?
Scott Pilgrim for me.
Yeah I know you can see both films in the theatre. The point is, most likely people will only see one that weekend. Which do you choose?
Expendables was the answer.
Hell, Expendables made $35 million being a rated R film its first week which is not bad this summer considering mostly family films dominated this year. Just thinking that is an amazing feat at this box office. -
The LA Times has a great review comparing the movie to High Fidelity. I dig the angle the writer takes.
And here is a great review for the game. -
Quote:Some critics do the snarking, but overall, it's done pretty well in the critical reception department.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
IO9's Scott Pilgrim Vs. The Lamentable Weekend Gross argues that (1) the Michael Cera backlash is strong (as can be seen on these boards); (2) critics are still snarking about it as a movie for the stereotypical video gamer, implicitly lowering the appeal of being a member of the audience; and (3) it's too much of a guy flick, with Romana Flower's character noticeably diminished from the comic series in order to keep the running time down.
Things like this quote from the article linked just serve as fodder not to listen to the negative criticism when it has no basis:
And #3 directly conflicts with the attitude on these boards.Quote:2.) Critical backlash: The movie has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 80%, but those critics who weren't too fond of film could have set the agenda more so than usual. Every film has its detractors, but as Linda Holmes at NPR observes, the reviews of Scott Pilgrim have been a soapbox for critics to razz on the film's demographic:
After referring to the first part of the movie as a "dork-pandering assault," The Boston Phoenix reviewer goes on to say that Michael Cera's performance is "irritating" in part because of "the non-stop Pavlovian laugh track provided by the audience at the screening I attended." (As far as I know, that's a first: "You made the audience laugh, you irritating actor in a comedy, and that's what's wrong with you.")
The review in the St. Petersburg Times begins, "First of all, I'm not a video gamer. I have discovered more appealing ways to not have a life."
The New York Observer sniffs that the film is "clearly directed at an audience with generational ADD."
Damn, I took you for a fan.Quote:I'm still looking forward to watching this in the theater, where it's clearly made to be seen. Putting it off as a rental is simply a bad idea. That said, I was on the fence about it going into this week. The marketing campaign hadn't impressed me, nor did the buzz from Comic Con. Only when Edgar Wright and the cast were interviewed in detail on the cusp of opening weekend did the movie sound actually intriguing.
The PSN game is also a great marketing tool. I kind of wish Sony hadn't "scored" two week exclusivity so maybe some 360 players would have been drawn into seeing the movie after trying out the free demo.
Did the Dark Knight open in many different territories after its opening weekend, or was it simply a follow-up weekend to an already international screening?Quote:Originally Posted by Golden Girl
The Dark Knight only managed as multiplier of just over 3 on its opening weekend total for it's final gross - that means you're expecting this movie to perform twice as well as The Dark Knight multiplier wise
I'm trying to find a weened world-wide box office gross. I can't do it.
From the article linked a bit back:
Where exactly did this originate?Quote:I thought Cera made a fine Scott Pilgrim, but some folks are very vocally burnt out by his semi-twee brand of comedy. Somehow, this mild-mannered actor has become a lightning rod for intense vitriol. Here's a fake trailer that capitalizes on that attitude
He was a bit-player in like three scenes in Juno, and while that movie is reviled by "The Internet," I don't think Cera has much to do with it.
Arrested Development was great all around, and still not enough people have watched it to develop an antagonistic relationships with Cera.
Superbad was loved by everyone, and he was an appropriate foil to Jonah Hill.
In Paper Heart, he plays himself and is really relateable, but I doubt even many of you have seen that.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist would probably fall under a "chick flick" designation from many here (hell, if SP can...) that I found to be somewhat enjoyable. I watched it once and that was enough.
Did anyone besides me even bother to see Youth in Revolt? He was okay in that, but could anyone really hate him?
Is that about it? Where does the hate originate? I don't see it.
Oh, there was Year One. I never saw that, I heard it was awful. But was that due to Cera, or horrible writing? -
Quote:It will make it back, at the least.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
That might be hard - on average, the opening weekend of a movie represents between 33-25% of its final total, expecially in the summer when each weekend usually has a big-ish new release - and if a movie opens poorly, theaters don't tend to let it hang around to build up an audience - it gets yanked out in favor of the next blockbuster hopeful, and loses screens too fast to recover.
I think it will make it back when it releases in the UK on the 25th, then turn out to be really profitable on blu-ray. -
More people saw the Expendables.
More people say Scott Pilgrim is the better movie.
I don't think you can value a movie's worth simply on the viewers it attracts opening weekend.
I mean, we don't have to look very far: Hardly anyone plays City of Heroes these days. Is it a bad game?
More people own a Wii rather than a PS3 or a 360. Is the Wii better?
More people watch American Idol and CSI: Wherever the spin-off happens to be this week than they do the few spots of original programming on network, mainstream TV.
Just because the mainstream digs it, doesn't mean it's good.
So, Scott Pilgrim won't be making its money back in the U.S. unfortunately ($60 mill budget). Thankfully, they're turning out in droves in Canada, which is expected. The author, Bryan Lee O'Malley, is Canadian and has a big following. The film also takes place in Toronto, and I believe it was filmed there as well.
SP doesn't open in the UK until the 25th, where it should also make a sizable chunk due to director-allegiance to Wright.
But, going by America's sales figures, Expendables won the war of $$$.
I didn't expect Scott Pilgrim to make a ton of money, but I was hoping it could beat out the chick flick du jour of the week; Eat, Pray, Love; and was under the impression that, "Surely no one wants to see those washed-up 50+ year olds trying to recapture their youth" until I got a big dose of this forum. Myself, and the cirle I run in, aren't interested in generic action movies. There does have to be some manner of mental stimulation involved for me to enjoy a flick. -
Quote:My wife loves chick flicks, and this didn't satisfy her quotient for one. She didn't view it as such at all. I mean, he tells her "I'm in lesbian with you," and only later realizes that he meant the "other forbidden "L" word."Originally Posted by ShoNuff
Expendibles was my choice, and it didn't let me down. I might.. see that dressed up love story.. i think thats what prevents me from being super enthused by it since I don't have an inclination for love story viewing. I mean the geek factor of paranormally powered beings look ok.... but a "love story"
See it, man. You'll dig it. -
That's the thing... On movies.com they have a section about "opening this week" with SP, Expendables and Eat, Pray, Love listed. Next to that it has their critical and fan response.
Scott Pilgrim - 80%
Expendables - 50% (ish)
EPL - 30% (ish)
But then there was the grosses, and you may as well flip it.
Apparently fan and critical support aren't enough. I don't know what to blame it on - Probably Cera-hate? I thought the marketing campaign was really well done (but then again, I don't think I ever saw a preview on network TV, so maybe not).
I'll definitely be buying the blu-ray. I can already picture how awesome it will look and the extras will be. I've already heard that they had to cut Knives Chau's father entirely, so that will be cool to see in the deleted scenes.
I was hoping to see it again today, both because I wanted to and to help the weekend grosses even a little bit (though does Sunday even count?), but I don't have the time. Perhaps a mid-week showing. -
I thought the other "useless" threads worked to unify the community. They're an option to learn more about a player outside of that they have a level 42 Ice/Radition Emission Controller. You get to know the player behind the character much more through the forums than you do the game, and it's a real bummer to me that aspect seems to have died due to either absent players or over forum-regulation by the Mods.
Besides, it's not as if there is a rush of "casual players" inviding the forums to discuss the game now that all of the "junk" is no longer present.
I could see this being an arguing possibility if we were speaking in hypotheticals. But now we've seen both approaches, and in my admittedly limited experience since my recent return, it appears that the forums were more active with both pertinent and non-pertinent information "back in the day." -
Quote:I've never minded Cera, but I understand why the majority does. I thought he was mostly good in Scott Pilgrim... Kind of. Scott is a hyperactive, ADD-addled 23-year old. For some reason the movie made him 22, and Cera just can't deliver the "Mymindisrunningsofastbecauseninjasarechasingmeaaa aaahohlookicecream" like the book Scott did. The "defeated" moments that Scott has in the books are pulled off to a tee by Cera, but again, those are his forte.Originally Posted by JeNeSaisQuoi
You know, I loved the film but wasn't all that crazy about the books. Well, book really, as I've only read the first one. I'm not saying it wasn't good, but it didn't catch my interest enough that I've made a point to buy the other books over some other books I'd like to read. When I have more money to spend or if a friend lends them to me, I'll finish the series off.
Oddly enough, I enjoyed the movie more partially because of Michael Cera. It's good to see him not just utterly being George Michael for a change.
If you're serious about reading the books, I'd recommend reading through Book 2. Book 1 is determining the setting, and you know how that can go in books. Book 3 is probably my favorite, but I don't think you would need to read that far just to determine if you wanted to continue. -
"That kid in Scott Pilgrim" is going to be the death of that movie.
Cera is just going to have to take a break from acting for awhile... He's at about Ben Affleck-levels of angst-targeting at this point in his career.
There was very few people in my theater, and it seems that is the common theme from the grosses standpoint and antecdotal evidence. Huge bummer. -
MILD SPOILERS FOLLOW!
Got back a bit ago. Thinking over it now... I liked it, but it certainly had its flaws. The books were better, and Wright has Michael Comeau say as much during one of the final scenes (when Pilgrim returns after using his extra life).
The film was slight disappointment compared to the books because a) it didn't capture the heart of the books (but did have a heart of its own) and b) much of the story was cut to make room for the fighting. While the fights are and were always going to be the best part of the film, they started to happen more and more quickly with little story in between. By the end, I can imagine people unfamiliar with the book were wondering why Ramona and Scott are together; they never seemed to really share anything in common or had any happiness between them. In the books, you get a sense of their chemistry and love. In the movie? Not so much.
Also, I think Wright's adaptation was a little too faithful. Some of the winding dialogue that worked in the book fell flat in the movie because the scenes ran a little long.
Again, I loved the movie. So much so that I may go see it again before the weekend is out (possibly by myself - The wife wasn't a fan). But it wasn't without some flaws.
I'd even go to say that I fear an audience who isn't familiar with the book just would not have many reasons to like the movie's plot at all. The style of the movie, yes, but the plot and dialogue, perhaps not.
Also... A mediocre turnout at our 6:30 showing. 25% full theater at best. Big bummer. -
Ditto. That's awesome. Maybe I won't have to send any characters away to die after all.
-
About that exemp change. Is it a full amount of XP, or reduced in some way?
-
The end will be different than the series ending.
And how we get there will be different. Just from the one proper name I saw in the spoiler post, I know that wasn't included in the book.
Plus, I'm hoping even people who haven't read the book see the movie.
I'm so excited for it. I'm wearing a Scott Pilgrim shirt that is ridiculously too small for me. But I had to wear it - It's Scott Pilgrim Day! -
Damn, couldn't get further than the second post before a spoiler hit?
Looks like I'll need to avoid this thread until tonight. I'm seeing a 6:30 after work. -
Norteamericano as opposed to futbol.
-
Thank you. Looks like I've seen some of it already then.
-
Quote:Mine was being played right when Energy Armor was first around and awful.Originally Posted by Is_Errant
Missing out... my Dark/Nrg Brute is TASTY and retardly resilient for not being soft-capped.
-
Quote:I will be around at that time, with any of the three listed above. Unless villains can join? If so, that changes everything.Originally Posted by ChrisMoses
Put me down as a maybe, and look for me online. I'm going to have some windows of playtime opportunity on Saturday, but I don't know exactly when.
I think I've only done these TF's once, right before I took off. From what I remember, they were pretty cool.
I'm more interested in the first one so I can get some'a that sweet XPzz (I don't think I have a non-50 who is 46+), but if I'm around I'll do both or either.
So, if I can make it, for the first it's just 30-39, right? I could bring an Ice/Elec Blaster, an Earth/Sonic Controller or a Plant/Thermal Controller. And maybe another... My characters tend to get mired in the 30's, so I have a few options. -
Quote:I've deleted to many over the years. After just coming back, I found myself looking for my lvl 50 Peacebringer (deleted). Then my lvl 33 Dark/Energy Brute (deleted). Then my lvl 50 Spine/Invuln Scrapper (deleted). Then my lvl... Alright, you get the drift. I've deleted way too many over the years.Originally Posted by Ukaserex
I've got to say that I'm more inclined to transfer TO Infinity rather than away from it.
And with GR, there will be more opportunities to help and/or team with some of the returning player base.
That being said, I do understand the reasoning behind moving dormant 50's to another server to make room for slots. I know I could never bring myself to delete a 50 to make room. -
I've hooked two. Any others interested? Need at least one more, and I'd prefer that be a CoH-player rather than just a random dude from another source. The league is all current and former players, you see, and I don't want to taint that.
-
Great read. You play on Infinity? I wish I had teamed with you.
I'm just returning after a two-year hiatus wherein I graduated, bought a house, got a new job and got married. Now I'm back in and really looking forward to actually having the time to play now that I have all of these other responsibilities!
Hopefully you'll find yourself ina similar position in a year or two or whenever your obsession rekindles.
Have fun enjoying the real world in the meanwhile. Be careful about Super Jumping out there. It results in a lot of sprained ankles. -
Damn I wish detractors would bother reading this.