I hate Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

[Little_Nemo]

I agree that Michael Cera always plays a Michael Cera character but I don’t have a problem with that. Lots of actors keep playing essentially the same character in every movie they make. If the movie has a Michael Cera character in it, you might as well cast Cera for the role.

And I agree that movie wasn’t realistic with the stuff out of comic books and video games. But so what? Was Iron Man or Inception or The A-Team or Salt or The Karate Kid realistic? Movies are supposed to be entertaining - realism is not a necessity.

[DigitalC]

I didn’t see Scott as the typical Michael Cera character. He plays lovable awkward but ultimately decent guys, Scott was a raging self centered douche bag that just happened to be played by Michael Cera.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I was also put off right from the start that the Michael Cera character was dating an underaged girl. Couldn’t get past it (although I know from long personal experience that it’s commonplace for slackers in bands. High school girls are easily impressed).

It’s very possible that I’m mixing up the graphic novels with the movie, but as I recall she was seventeen – above the age of consent in its setting (Canada) – and he’s quite immature for twenty-three. (Calls to my mind my relationship with my SO, which began when I was 18 and she 23. But I like to think I was mature …) 'Sides, he clearly wasn’t interested in her sexually; he made it a point that they hadn’t even kissed or even hugged, I think, after dating for weeks.

(Not sure why this is my second post defending a movie I didn’t like …)

[maladroit]

I liked the movie. It felt authentic in the way that obsessive gamers filter the world through game references, everything relates back to a game they played. I quit WoW years ago and I still get reminded of zones while watching tv. That looks like Booty Bay!

[Little_Nemo]

@DigitalC

I didn’t see Scott as the typical Michael Cera character. He plays lovable awkward but ultimately decent guys, Scott was a raging self centered douche bag that just happened to be played by Michael Cera.

I think the cluelessness is a constant. It’s just that in this movie we got to see how annoying a clueless person can be to the people around him.

[RickJay]

@Miller

One question for those who disliked the movie: do any of you play video games?

I have been an avid gamer for thirty years.

The video game theme is what I loved about the movie. I found the movie, in that regard, original and brave. I like movies that are willing to try something new and stick with it. And in this case I found it especially enjoyable because I got all the game jokes.

The problem wasn’t the video game stuff. It was Scott Pilgrim.

[QUOTE=Quercus]
I mean, if you’re asking why this slacker guy fights the Evil Exes, don’t you have to start asking how he can survive being throw through a brick wall, and wonder how he can jump 30 feet in the air, and so on? I mean, this is the point at which the movie turns on the “Please suspend your disbelief” sign, sends a disbelief suspension request to your facebook page, and has you sign a six-page waiver suspending your disbelief. Kind of misses the point to say you don’t find it realistic there.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. The problem is not realism. The problem is consistency. Suspension of disbelief allows you to accept the unreal, but not the inconsistent.

The video-game nature of physical combat in “Scott Pilgrim” is consistent within itself. The viewer understands that the Toronto shown in the film is a Toronto like the real one but where physical altercations are subject to the rules of video games and sort of look like “Double Dragon.” Having a different physics model in a movie is nothing new. But to have a character behave in a way that makes no sense is something else (and I’m not sure I buy the Scott-gets-chicks-because-he’s-in-a-band argument, as it’s implied Sex Bob Omb has never played anywhere outside the living room.)

To use an example, the physics in “Star Wars” aren’t realistic, either. There’s no such thing as light sabers - those aren’t even theoretically sensible - and FTL travel and The Force and all that shit. But the viewer is asked to accept a different physics model for the movie - indeed, the basics of the model are presented to the viewed in the first twenty seconds of the movie, by showing a space battle fought with lasers in space between two ships, just to make sure you understand the nature of the Star Wars universe - and then the story plays out logically. The equivalent to Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is if Luke Skywalker, rather than being Luke Skywalker - impetuous and whiny, but talented and exceptionally brave - was just a hopeless loser who had no talent of any sort, was cowardly, passive-agressive, a liar, and generally an unlikable worm with no ambition at all. And then suddenly he’s a super duper X-wing pilot.

[QUOTE=Diogenes]
I was also put off right from the start that the Michael Cera character was dating an underaged girl.
[/QUOTE]

As has been pointed out,

1. In Canada the age of consent is 16, and
2. His dating an underage girl actually IS consistent with his character.

It’s a little puzzling how Knives keeps getting into clubs, but oh well.

[Jophiel]

@Little_Nemo

I agree that Michael Cera always plays a Michael Cera character but I don’t have a problem with that. Lots of actors keep playing essentially the same character in every movie they make. If the movie has a Michael Cera character in it, you might as well cast Cera for the role.

I think it’s two things:

(A) A lot of people thought “Wow, this kid is great in Arrested Development! What a good actor!” Then it turned out that he can only play one role and I think some of it is disappointment (?) in the idea that he’s not great. Or only great in one very narrow spectrum depending on your point of view.

(B) If you’re going to have your career defined by playing one role, make it a good one. Christopher Walken doesn’t get bagged on for playing Christopher Walken in every role because Christopher Walken is awesome. Likewise Samuel L. Jackson. Michael Cera plays an awkward dork in every role which is a little harder to get behind or think “Shit, even if this movie sucks, I bet Michael Cera will be awesome in it.”

[Kamino_Neko]

@monkeylucifer

I find the entire concept, that you have to physically fight someone’s exes, to be quite juvenile and asinine.

Yes it is.

Scott is immature.

Ramona is immature.

Knives is immature, even as the youngest character in the main cast.

The Evil Exes are immature.

NOBODY in the story is mature or even particularly functional.

The whole situation is completely fucked up, because the characters have a communal maturity level of a 12 year old.

And that’s pretty much the point.

[The_Hamster_King]

I loved the movie, but I agree with people who say that Michael Cera was miscast.

In the comic books Scott is basically a bimbo. He’s a cute airhead who gets away with murder because he’s so innocent and lovable. He’s self-absorbed and inconsiderate, but (most of) the other characters put up with his shit because he’s so obviously not malicious about it. He’s sweet at heart, just dangerously clueless. And the entire comic is about him finally getting a clue.

In the movie it’s much harder to see why the other characters put up with Cera. He’s not lovable enough to get away with the shit he gets away with.

[Little_Nemo]

You have to realize that the story wasn’t about Scott Pilgrim fighting seven bad guys. It was a story about how Scott Pilgrim became a better human being. If Scott hadn’t been an oblivious slacker there wouldn’t have been any room for him to improve.

[BigT]

I thought the Scott Pilgrim character was supposed to be an audience surrogate. So of course he’s going to have multiple girlfriends. It’s like Bella getting the perfect boyfriend who will never age or die.

[Little_Nemo]

@BigT

I thought the Scott Pilgrim character was supposed to be an audience surrogate. So of course he’s going to have multiple girlfriends. It’s like Bella getting the perfect boyfriend who will never age or die.

No, Scott is supposed to be a fuck-up. The plot of the movie is him learning to not fuck up his life and the lives of others.

[fuzzypickles]

@Paranoid_Randroid

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I was also put off right from the start that the Michael Cera character was dating an underaged girl.

It’s very possible that I’m mixing up the graphic novels with the movie, but as I recall she was seventeen – above the age of consent in its setting (Canada) – and he’s quite immature for twenty-three.

Nobody I know considers 17/23 to be distasteful in any way. 17/43 would be a problem (or worse, 7/23)…but 17/23? Those numbers are sympatico, baby.

[Miller]

@Jophiel

Maybe, but that didn’t impress itself on me. I saw Pilgrim’s fights as more of a one-off but then I’m not at all familiar with the comic or whatever so I could very well be wrong or have missed something. Not that it ruined the movie or anything for me, I just didn’t get any “funny juxtaposition” vibe from the character.

It can’t be a one-off if he does it seven times. But seriously, look at how the people around him react to the fights he gets into. Nobody is weirded out by it. Nobody is surprised when Scott punches a guy so hard he turns into coins. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a vegan punches holes in brick walls. Hell, Gideon straight up stabs a dude to death* in the middle of his crowded club on opening night, and nobody freaks out. Clearly, this sort of thing is pretty normal in their world.

[sub]*He got better.[/sub]

[Wolverine]

@RickJay

2. Why is Scott so eager to engage in combat with the Seven Evil Exes, aside from his unwillingness to hit a girl? Pilgrim is a hopeless coward in every facet of his life, but never shies from fighting. You’ve got to have it one way or another; either he’s a chickenshit and fights back only because he’s cornered, or he’s not a chickenshit.

That’s because it is an external display of an internal process. Romona has baggage that Scott needs to fight through in order to understand and appreciate her. He is clueless with all of his girlfriends and has finally found one that he is willing to fight for.

[Ostrya]

AlthoughRickJay said he liked aspects of the movie, he also did a reasonably astute job in post #46 explaining why I thought this movie sucked dead donkey dongs and chewed rusty crusty camel cakes.
It was all about context - this movie wasn’t only unbelievable, but neither was it successful fantasy, a story that one could absorb. It just came off as just plain ridiculous.

On the other hand Kick-Ass was as good, as enjoyable and fun as Scott Pilgrim movie was bad.

[FinnAgain]

@Miller

But seriously, look at how the people around him react to the fights he gets into. Nobody is weirded out by it. Nobody is surprised when Scott punches a guy so hard he turns into coins. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a vegan punches holes in brick walls. Hell, Gideon straight up stabs a dude to death* in the middle of his crowded club on opening night, and nobody freaks out. Clearly, this sort of thing is pretty normal in their world.

The only note of disbelief in the whole movie was when the first evil ex started singing. After Pilgrim’s fight with the lesbian ex, the crowd immediately resumed talking (IIRC, one of the comments was something like “Wow, pilgrim must be so embarrassed”) The fight was just hum drum to them. The vegan ex was asked, matter of factly, why not drinking milk gave him super powers. The DJ twins summon electronic dragons that are then fought by a giant sasquatch (after their music has blown apart Sex Bob-omb’s stage) and the crowd evidently just thinks that it’s neat.

Then again, I just saw the movie for the first time when it came out on Netflix two days ago, and I thought it was great fun. So what do I know?

[Nom_de_Plume]

I’m not the target demo --I’m 45, not a big gamer… and I loved this movie. This thread makes me want to shell out the bucks to watch it again on demand. My wife and I thought it was creative and hilarious.
The fact that M. Cera acts so like every other character in a movie so different from any he’s done is hilarious in itself. He was so deadpan when he defeated the first ex and found he gained coins, but not enough for bus fare. Great movie. Thank you for starting this thread to remind me.

[Miller]

@FinnAgain

The only note of disbelief in the whole movie was when the first evil ex started singing. After Pilgrim’s fight with the lesbian ex, the crowd immediately resumed talking (IIRC, one of the comments was something like “Wow, pilgrim must be so embarrassed”) The fight was just hum drum to them. The vegan ex was asked, matter of factly, why not drinking milk gave him super powers. The DJ twins summon electronic dragons that are then fought by a giant sasquatch (after their music has blown apart Sex Bob-omb’s stage) and the crowd evidently just thinks that it’s neat.

There’s also the scene where Scott is talking to the foul-mouthed girl whose mouth keeps pixelating when she swears, and he asks her, “How do you do that with your mouth?” I think it may be the only time any character comments directly on the weirdness that’s going on. But what’s interesting is that, by commenting on it, he’s bringing it into the reality of the movie. The pixelization (and, by extension, other visual effects like the comic book-style text boxes) aren’t meta-humor. They aren’t jokes made by the film’s creator on the events in his movie, they’re actual things occurring within the fiction of the movie.

[Tanbarkie]

@Miller

There’s also the scene where Scott is talking to the foul-mouthed girl whose mouth keeps pixelating when she swears, and he asks her, “How do you do that with your mouth?” I think it may be the only time any character comments directly on the weirdness that’s going on. But what’s interesting is that, by commenting on it, he’s bringing it into the reality of the movie. The pixelization (and, by extension, other visual effects like the comic book-style text boxes) aren’t meta-humor. They aren’t jokes made by the film’s creator on the events in his movie, they’re actual things occurring within the fiction of the movie.

Yep. It’s more clear in the comics, but this is a universe with a very specific kind of fourth wall-breaking, where the characters are aware that they’re in a comic book universe but aren’t aware that that means that they have an audience reading them. There are several offhand references in the books to earlier volumes by the characters (“Yeah, I ______ in Vol. 5, but you seemed busy so I didn’t mention it”), and Scott comments on several subtitles and captions, Deadpool style.

I think this may actually be the most “generational” aspect of “Scott Pilgrim.” Not the video game bits, or the indie music references, but the sheer meta-ness. Those of us who are in the age range of the characters in the movie grew up in the burgeoning internet era. Remixing, mashing up, or repurposing movies, comic books, TV shows, music, video games, and all other forms of media is as natural to this generation as breathing. The target audience of this movie is one that is utterly unfazed by the ridiculous hyper-reality and constant shout-outs to pop culture - it would never really even occur to them that as minor a thing as “universal rules” would matter in such a context. And the same is true for the characters.