What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=H-vw8Ex_-vA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

they dint use the well-received alternate ending and went with the one we saw in the film

schizophrenic marketing

Not enough boobs. And recast Scott.

Knives deserves better then Scott.


Kim is best girl

OK so I saw this movie and absolutely hated it. The lolsoquirky characters annoyed me and I thought all the references were done in an incredibly lazy way.

Would I like the comic more?

Released the same week as Expendables. No hope for it

No.A good portion of the movie mirrors the comic almost shot for shot. The characters are also pretty similar but at least in the comic some of them get development.

No Ramona/Knives makeout scene

This this this. Also the movie was barely funny at all.

The comics seem to give Ramona and Scott some actual tender moments.

It was live action.
ONE FUCKING JOB

It was surprisingly good for live action. I think Wright did a great job at pulling off the crazy vidya aspects in the real world. Most of the cast was pitch perfect too.

...

It was Michael Cera starring Scott Pilgrim, not Scott Pilgrim starring Michael Cera.

>Animation is hard, time consuming, and financially costly.

Michael Cera being cast in a movie concept that already had a fairly limited audience to start with before adding him into the mix and making it look even more like was a hipster movie.

I liked it. That's why it failed. :(

Cera was fucking awful casting. It's a shame because otherwise the whole cast is PERFECT

Forgot image

this one makes me laugh every time

The source material wasn't that great to begin with. What hope did the adaptation have?

>What hope did the adaptation have?
Having a talented director/writer in Edgar Wright and a mostly solid cast

Holy shit. I just realized that's Chris Evans

This gets me every time. I mean it's no Hot Fuzz, but the comedic timing is astounding in some scenes


youtube.com/watch?v=H-vw8Ex_-vA

Seriously though what went wrong? It's one of the best adaptations except maybe for casting of Scott.

It's quite parallel to the comics without the parts that can't really be adapted and without the Scott's spiritual growth. But the latter is implied in some ways. So I'm still at a loss why people hated it.

You might like the comic more. The themes are more developed and in the end kind of mean more than they do in the film.

>The lolsoquirky characters annoyed me
I give it a pass based on the fact that it came out a little before those traits became the new standby.

Honestly, I see it as a film made for the fans. I really thought Michael Cera did ok, but he really didn't portray the asshole part of Scott's personality literally at all.

I still like it.

What do you mean? It wasn't a fantastic film by any means, but given how terrible the source material was I think it really couldn't have gone any better.

I used to love this movie when I was like 12 and rewatched it once I read all of the graphic novels (only read the last one like half a decade ago) and I didn't like it that much.

Nearly everyone they cast was fucking perfect...except Michael Cera. Scott is a geek, but he is a physical geek when in trouble. He was never an introverted shy weirdo like Cera.

it was definitely held back by its source material.

this movie had a lot of good aesthetic going on. I still like the vfx, scene transitions, the title drop/transition... its all just wasted on scott pilgrim, and thats coming from someone who kind of liked the books. the movie did a really good job of mirroring the panels from the comic, like scanning the belongings in scott and wallace's apartment and the elevator bit. but at the end of the day it's still really painfully awkward scott pilgrim relationship drama

everyone harps on michael cera as scott, but i dislike who they chose for gideon more.