Weekend Estimates by Nanny McKlady Switched To 3D
What is left to say. 5 movies opening to over $8 million each seems like too many movies, each of which had some audience.
Piranha 3D went nuts with publicity – like piranha swarming the marketplace, if you will – but didn’t quite get past the core base. Vampires Suck did nothing but advertise, in part because it was a no name cast and the whole thing is a gimmick, and got almost 10% of Twilight’s audience to come laugh at itself. Lottery Ticket did pretty well, but not Barbershop well. much as many of us enjoy the hell out of Jason Bateman, Jen Aniston without a strong drawing male lead is about an $8 million opener. And the first Nanny McPhee was, like a smaller Bean, was much stronger overseas, as this one will be, and had a much better opening date than this sequel, so while someone surely was hoping for a post-theatrical driven opening for this one, this number isn’t really too bad.
In other words, maybe it wasn’t “too many movies,” so much as it is five movies opening as kids are already back in school in many places, doing about what they could ever expect to do when only appealing to a very specific base.
Meanwhile The Expendables did about exactly what you expect in its second weekend. Lionsgate and some analysts are trying to sell this movie as a major event pointing to the future of the company. But it is very much the same kind of event Lionsgate has been in the business of for a long time… they picked up a movie… exactly the business that Carl Icahn wanted them to be in. This one, however, may be their second $100m domestic grosser in the company’s history, behind only Fahrenheit 9/11. So… well done, Tim Palen and Sarah Greenberg… good on ya… good for everyone… but if you guys spend $40 million on the sequel and that’s half the budget, you’re moving in the wrong direction.
It looks like there is no way TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE can make another $2.8 milllion.
Pity.
*”Expendables” is guaranteed to be in Lionsgate’s top 5 all-time domestically…perhaps even 2nd all-time behind “Fahrenheit 9/11″.
*”The Other Guys” is probably just going to barely eke out a profit because of the bloated budget. Maybe it saved Farrell’s career but studios are going to have to keep the budgets in the “Step Brothers”/”Anchorman” range.
*Universal is probably just going to break even this summer despite the worldwide hauls of “Despicable me” & Robin Hood after “Charlie St. Cloud” & “Scott Pilgrim.”
http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/08/scott-pilgrim-review/
Angry Joe is there!
You know who should be embarrased by how well the expendables is doing? Fox. How could they not get the a-team to those numbers? I mean the actors in the a-team were all coming off big suprise hits. I thought both were both fun throwbacks to the eighties. It just seems like fox made so much money off avatar that they did not care about their movies this summer. They messed up on knight and day and barley markted predators. Sometimes I wonder how rothman and company keep their jobs. Lets see what happens next summer with x-men first class and rise of the apes.
Overseas box office thoughts:
*Inception is about to pass Iron Man 2 worldwide….620 mil
*Salt & Last Airbender will probably break 300 mil worldwide…sequel for the former?
*Shrek 4 will finish above 700 mil worldwide
*Step Up 3 already has over 50 mil overseas(!)
*Grown Ups is actually doing pretty well overseas (59 mil) for Sandler
*Cats & Dogs 2 probably will break 100 mil worldwide but will still lose quite a bit
Disagree with you about Predators. Fox did what more studios should do with genre pictures. They had a specific and targeted ad campaign that they waited until the week or so before release to unleash. They got their $25 million opening and the film topped $50 million domestic and $100 million worldwide. You don’t have to do the whole 3-month saturation campaign for every release. You just have to know when and where to spend, especially if you were smart enough to budget the movie responsibly (Predators cost $40 million).
The A-Team was just a poor marketing campaign. They released a fun and exciting teaser, followed by a bland and generic full trailer that made my wife and I actually less excited to see the film (it was a classic case of a marketing campaign not quitting while they were ahead*). Also, they sold nostalgia and ‘how cool’ the cast was, as opposed to trying to convince anyone that the film was any good. It was a fun B-movie (as were The Losers and The Expendables), but fun B-movies shouldn’t necessarily cost $110 million. Knight and Day was a tough sell, as everybody was gunning for Cruise to fail. Still, the film has grossed $213 million worldwide so far, so international is saving the day yet again. As Dave mentioned sometime last summer (paraphrasing), Fox has started to treat US box office as just another region.
* For those who care – http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/modern-movie-marketing-campaigns-that.html
“Piranha 3D went nuts with publicity – like piranha swarming the marketplace, if you will – but didn’t quite get past the core base.”
You’d think TWC would have learned their lesson after Grindhouse.
“As Dave mentioned sometime last summer (paraphrasing), Fox has started to treat US box office as just another region.”
At their own risk. It’s still 40-60% of the total WW boxoffice take. More importantly, domestic exhibitors actually pay the distributors, which isn’t always the case in some of these backwater territories where film prints are still delivered via donkey.
I find the failure of Scott Pilgrim fascinating. Even though I hate anecdotal evidence in support of, well, anything, I do find this amusing. I had a cookout with some friends this afternoon (all of us parents in our late 30’s with kids ranging from 10-13) and one of those kids (13 year old boy) had several friends over at that time. All of these kids are heavy gamers, skateboarders, burgeoning apathetic slacker types and I asked them if they enjoyed Scott Pilgrim (which I saw opening weekend and loved and assumed they were, too). The first words out of one of their mouths, “Scott what?” Absolutely no recognition whatsoever. They thought they “mighta sorta” have seen a trailer for it but it was completely off their radar. The group did, however, go see Vampires Suck last night. If Scott Pilgrim isn’t even connecting with them does it even stand a chance of chipping away at all the red ink when it hits DVD?
Fox is lucky A-Team made more than 25 bucks.
There’s a huge difference between Expendables and A-Team — one has Stallone and a slew of B-list actors and thus the Aint-It-Cool crowd etc is a guarantee, while the other is some crap 80s show which only people my age (37) watched, and couldnt care less to see a movie remake of.
No one gives a shit about Bradley Cooper, unless he’s in a rom-com (maybe), or an ensemble comedy (lightning in a bottle). Same with whoever else was in that movie. Expendables worked b/c Arnold, Bruce, Mickey and Sly are in it, in whatever cameo roles they may be. And Sly has some Rambo goodwill he can still milk.
This shit is simple. Hollywood isn’t brain surgery.
I think that Inception will top out at 550-600 mil worldwide. Poland informed me of this fact just over a week ago, and at the same time the virtual impossibility of the film going over 700mil.
Something that was so obviously going to happen that it was plain to any layman willing to do the most basic of fact-checking.
The heavy anti-Inception bias he’s displayed in the boxoffice predictions he’s made about the film from the very start (most of which have made NO sense at all, especially coming from a supposedly savvy and experienced number cruncher) is just plain bizarre.
Seems to happen with him every time there’s a boxoffice outlier he doesn’t quite personally embrace (remember Dark Knight anyone?). It’s always a “non-story” and he just keeps moving the goal posts without any rationale or analysis behind it.
And then gets kvetchy any time somebody calls him on it.
If he replies to this comment I expect he’ll try to draw my attention to his quote: “If Inception gets to $700m, I will happily acknowledge it and trumpet it”, which anybody who has posted or lurked around these parts for any length of time knows is just not the case. He’d try to ignore it if possible, if not then offer up some text so soft and yielding that trying to parse any admission or opinion (or indeed meaning) out of it would be next to impossible.
Offering up the comment: “I don’t think it will see $600m at this point” on August 14th, with the film already at 550mil at that point and experiencing minimal drops in all major markets, is my idea of sloppy journalism.
….so nobody knows anything about the 165-minute “‘Exorcist’ Director’s Cut Event” slated to play one-nite only on September 30th in “select theaters”?
Could there really be a heretofore unseen version of the film that’s 45 minutes (give or take) longer than any previously seen earlier cut? Or is this a bait-and-switch tactic designed to lure unsuspecting “Exorcist” fans into the theater under false pretenses-only to discover that the “director’s cut” is really the same version already available on dvd prefaced by some Billy Friedkin anecdotes (also available on dvd courtesy of Friedkin’s commentary track)?
I’m intrigued, but skeptical. If anyone has any information on this upcoming “event,” please share.
A quick google search unearths absolutely nothing, except for theatre venues. Odd. If there was any news about an extra 45 mins I’d think it would have been all over the net.
Thrice, that’s just how this place works. Poland, like many other posters, do not exactly practice what they preach. They will tell you to be open-minded and not be judgmental, while they post something that is closed-minded and judgmental. David remains one of the worst transgressors of this on this entire blog. This is just who he is.
If you want to call him out like I have been doing for six weeks, go right ahead, but it will not register. David really believes that he’s being fair to Inception, that every point he’s making is relevant, and not tainted by his passive aggression.
Nevertheless, I would like to once again state that when it comes to Inception’s box office, Poland was wrong, and I indeed turned out to be RIGHT! GAME… SET.. MATCH… BOOYAH!
JPK-
I had virtually the SAME interaction with my major dork/gamer 14 year old cousin (who I then dragged to the film IMMEDIATELY…and he totally flipped for it) and every other pre-teen and teen I know has NO CLUE what a “Scott Pilgrim” is. I thought the gamer culture would be all over this but if they are, they’re illegally downloading it. Major PR bomb from Universal, imho.
ThriceDamned, when a movie is behind a WB or Paramount logo, it is a qualified success at best to Poland. Only Fox movies are unqualified hits in Poland-world.
Look back at his comments when dealing with the mentioned studios. Does he ever NOT back Fox when something involving them comes up? Does he ever NOT find a way to undersell or ignore a Paramount or WB success? He offers backhanded compliments at best.
Why do you think he hits at Nikki Finke all the time? IMO Poland’s conflict with her is all a proxy war between Fox and Paramount/WB.
This is way off topic, but I was very amused by ERIC MAYHER’s post (fifth one down). I find it incredibly ironic that the guy doesn’t bohter to capitalize any movie titles, which buggedthe heck out of me while reading it, yet has his name in all caps. The joys of living in a texting universe.
Of course, I should probably bohter to know how to type bohter.
movieman: “The Version You’ve Never Seen” has been redubbed the “director’s cut”, since Friedkin has changed his mind and now prefers it to the original version. (Also it’s presumably a little difficult to call it “The Version You’ve Never Seen” when it’s been out for a decade.) There is no extra 45 minutes in the film itself — the new footage that they’re showing will just be interviews and behind-the-scenes stuff, presumably from the upcoming Blu-ray.
Thirding the Scott Pilgrim confusion. Just got back from a second viewing with some friends I had asked to join me, after they passed the first time. Both had a blast.
Universal can open F&F to $70 million in April, but not Scott Pilgrim to even half that in August? Where the hell is the cross pollination? The mentions that Beck composed the soundtrack, and that Jackie Chan’s stunt team is all up ins?
JPK and Don, two things:
1) Do you guys really think Scott Pilgrim is a film for teenagers?
2) Why would you assume that kids from today would understand gaming culture from back in the day? They know it exist and what not because Nintendo is still using it to this day but it’s not about them. Should universal have advertised to them? Sure. Could they? Probably not because of it’s rating. Whateverthecase, the kids with it looked for it, the kids not with it, went and saw Vampire sucks.
Again, you folks seem to think that all geeks or gamers are all the same people and thus go see the same thing. We are not and we do not, and that’s a good thing.
One last point about JPK: yes, it will get in the black thanks to 20 somethings buying it on DVD. Hell, it will probably be a hell of a rental because it’s not like this word of mouth is going away or anything.
Tofu, I saw ads for SP everywhere and if you were on twitter for the last month, it’s been trending every day and it’s not like the people discussing referred to it as being crap. They were enthused about it and that’s what’s confusing to me because it would seem that confusion never got out to the people, or what I believe happened happened: some people were just too closed mind and immediately rejected it. No movie can over come that sort of taste test rejection and that seemed to have happened with SP.
Do we blame the marketing? No, because it summed up that movie the best it could. It could have been better but people either accept that aesthetic or not, and it would seem that for some people it turned them, off, and those people suck. THE END!
Dragged a whole friend’s family to see SCOTT PILGRIM tonight — ages from 8-65. Everybody loved it. And the 8 year old said to me after, “I’ve never seen anybody clap at a movie at the end.”
Now that I’ve finally seen it, the failure of “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” at the box office is an abject jawdropper. I haven’t seen a film in years that is so alive with doing every possible thing it can dream up with graphics, characters, metaphors, editing, satire, throw away lines, little things heard in the background, etcetera and so forth. It would be the most exhausting and grating picture ever made if it weren’t so damned beautifully exhilarating.
So many movies, not necessarily just bad movies, pretty much sleepwalk through what they’re doing; and you sit there in the theater and sleepwalk along with them because they aren’t THAT bad, the dialogue’s okay enough, the plot is serviceable enough, there were a couple of scenes that stood out a little, a character actor spiced things up in most of his or her scenes, but at the end of the movie, it’s always a small relief to be getting up as the credits roll. “Scott Pilgrim Vs The World” levels stuff like that, and if I wasn’t in love with movies before, this would be the pic that would weld that love into my bone marrow.
I am right there with IO on this one. I know this film isn’t for everybody and I don’t expect that people will get the same thing out of it that I did, but dammit, if you pass the chance up to just try Scott Pilgrim, you’re missing the very rare and real opportunity to have one of the best damn times of your life at a movie.
In the same way that some Hollywood blockbusters are just critic-proof and there’s nothing you can say to put a dent in their box office, I think Scott Pilgrim just might be an example of a movie that’s word-of-mouth proof. Whether it was the general animus towards (or disinterest in) Michael Cera as an actor, or people being turned off by the wacky-look of the film and staying turned off, I don’t know, but it should be doing SOMETHING better than this right now.
Hal, I agree with everything you posted. Again, replace confusing and enthusiasm up there, and you get my confusion. While I know this is just my personal anecdotal evidence but every site I have gone to over the past two weeks to have a discussion about this film features these two components. 1) the people who love it and 2) the people who never saw it but hated it when they saw the trailer. Seriously, these two steps are repeated continually and step #2 has to be what did the film in. Some folks just see the ads and the trailers and are just repulsed by them, and there’s nothing you can do to beat that reaction.
Sure, you could maybe cut a different spot but those spots, trailers, and remix videos are true to the freaking movie. You really cannot blame the movie for being the way it is because the way it is…is awesome.
It is so awesome, that almost everyone on this site who has seen this film from David on down, has loved this freaking movie. The fact that we are here means we are movie people and other movie people seem to love it as well. The fact that the rest of the people seem not to love it, really, is baffling as freaking hell.
“#youhavenoswag” was also a trending topic on Twitter. I wouldn’t look too deeply into that. Besides, a good % of the tweets in a trending topic page are people asking “what is [trending topic]”.
KC, do you just think I am an idiot or do you always treat complete strangers this way? I only ask why because outside of holding a college degree and generally being rather net savvy, all I had to do was this, here’s the link… http://twitter.com/#search?q=Scott%20Pilgrim , and read. Just read it. Some ask what it is but a lot of it is people discussing how awesome the film is and this has been going on since Comic con.
Again, not an idiot no matter how many times Jeff keeps begging the blue fairy to make me one, but still perplexed at the US and Canada rejecting such awesomeness.
I just looked now. Only 3 of the top 15 tweets actually mentioned something about the movie, the others consisted of “I unlocked a character in a game”, “Click here to download soundtrack” and “Expendables scott pilgrim inception avatar” etc. random word dropping.
That’s not a discussion.
I think the “failure” of SCOTT PILGRIM is totally attributable to myopic marketing and a bad release date. You cannot sell an $80 million movie (yes, $80m, not $60m) soley to the too-cool-for-school Silverlake crowd. The poster was a picture of its star, face hidden, wearing a ringer t-shirt and playing a vintage bass. The movie actually has a catchy concept; how on Earth do those materials convey it? With music and fashion, it makes sense to target hipster “tastemakers” first, under the theory that, over the course of several months, the word will get out and the rest of the world will catch up; not the case with a wide-release movie, whose fate is sealed by its first Saturday. And why didn’t they attempt to sell an inherently very charming and romantic movie to the “Twilight” crowd of teenage girls — the one huge key demographic who had no interest in seeing “Expendables” or “Eat Pray Love” and would actually have loved this movie? It wasn’t a campaign aimed at teens — it was a campaign aimed at that small subset of urban 30-somethings who used to collect limited edition runs of Sub Pop 7″ vinyl singles, fondly and smugly harkening back to their ’90s teenage years. Whereas the campaign for EXPENDABLES, similarly nostalgic, was aimed at the kids who used to beat those kids up and watched WWF and listened to quadruple-platinum Candlebox, instead.
Thanks for the info, Bob.
I kind of suspected that it was a paid promotion for an upcoming dvd.
Guess I’ll just stay home and watch the version I already own again.
Saw Inception and Piranha this weekend. Loved them both. Regarding the latter, I figured horror fans would be starving and desperate to see something in theaters by now. Not exactly a ton of horror this summer. Some cheese tastes better at home I guess. I had a blast. Competent cast (Shue looks great), excellent make-up effects, plenty of eye candy, intentional and unintentional humor (clearly doesn’t take itself seriously), a pretty awesome central piranha attack, and a speedy pace (that’s one abrupt ending). Good times.
Inception lived up to the hype. Nolan is as good as he’s ever been (I will probably always love Memento most; caught it with him in attendance at TIFF in a near-empty theater). Cast is outstanding, music is wonderful, and it totally immerses you in a fascinating, complex world. It drags a little near the end and I’m not sure I understood everything or if it holds up to scrutiny, but for nearly the entire running time I was engrossed and engaged. Can’t believe it’s made more than $260 million/$619 million. Quite an accomplishment IMO.
This is entirely anecdotal, but FWIW:
As soon as the Expendables trailer went online, I showed it to my wife. She said, “Oh my God, we have to see that,” a reaction I really wasn’t expecting, since every single action movie of the era being invoked we have seen together has elicited only derisive laughter. And yet, her nostalgia for that type of movie and those actors was real and immediate.
In fact, every single time we caught a TV spot for it, or a new trailer was up, she said “When is it coming out? Let’s go see it.” So opening weekend I dragged her out late Friday night and we saw it.
As I posted earlier, neither of us had a particularly good time. But what can you say about marketing that works that immediately and that effectively for that particular quadrant? I’m still pretty mystified, since I didn’t expect her to enjoy it, and she really didn’t. But she HAD TO SEE IT.
Go figure. From the discussion in this thread, it’s clear that one campaign got those women in the seats, and the other… did not.
“The Expendables” also landed the latinos who are heavy into action movies. Lionsgate ran an ad on Spanish network Univision before the World Cup final last month.
As for “Scott Pilgrim”? Its main character is into rock music. These days Americans prefer pop and R&B — the press may worship U2 but the public prefers Lady Gaga.
Ah, I see Chucky is branching out into newer, fresher stupid arguments.
So its established who is not going to Scott Pilgram, who is going? Is this behaving like an arthouse hit with only serious movie fans who have read the reviews and word of mouth online going again and again while more casual moviegoers are choosing the woeful alternatives ( IO places some blame older moviegoers for skipping SP but its not the foogeys lining up to see Vampires Suck).
Scott Pilgrim is ok.
YES – It’s very, very energetic. It stays in its world consistently. Some very clever zingers.
Every fight scene goes on too long. Since Pilgrim never gets physically hurt, there’s no danger. Since we frankly don’t CARE about his relationship with Ramona and since the guy is kinda a skeeze from the beginning and ignoring Knives Chau…
It’s entertaining, but it’s shallow. It got the fate it deserved.
“…but its not the foogeys lining up to see Vampires Suck”
Yep. More with the anecdotal crap, but everyone I know who’s seen SP is over 30. I went with a group of friends, one of whom brought her teenage daughter, and she got up and left halfway through the movie.
But last week, I heard kids talking about Vampires Suck right and left (I work in a High School) and how much they were looking forward to it. It was rather depressing.
The theater I saw SC in was filled with under 30’s who loved it. It’s a romantic action comedy and should have been marketed towards WOMEN.
SP is a debacle of casting, not marketing. At this point the American public has soundly dismissed the idea of Cera as a lead or co-lead. (Especially in any part that calls remotely for kicking ass.) Sucks that the lesson had to be delivered at the expensive of a good movie, but I’m always happy to see luke-warm water find its appropriate level.
I would love to sit in on the postmortem. “I’ll tell you who’s responsible, sir… the American public (and I know you’re close with them).” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPBIDPIo92Q)
I probably should have added to my comment above that when I went to see Scott Pilgrim my 12 year old daughter was my date for the night. I wish I could report that she was as hip as her dad and loved it..but, no. She hated it. Her mini-review was, “Ramona was a total bitch who wouldn’t look twice at Scott in the real world and Knives was awesome.” Now, I didn’t drag her to the film. She was very excited to see it. Shaun of the Dead (it’s a family fave – me, missus, and daughter all love it) is one of her favorite films and that alone was enough to pique her interest. I wonder if the generational pop-culture deluge that delighted was lost on her. Strip that away and I’m somewhat inclined to agree with her assessment.
And – one other thing – totally unrelated but… In our build-up to Scott Pilgrim, we broke out our Bluray of Shaun of the Dead. For the first time I was struck by Shaun’s culpability in the deaths of virtually all of his friends. If he and Ed had just barricaded the windows and doors, stayed put, and kept quiet they most certainly would have survived. Liz, David, and Dianne were actually quite safe on the second floor. Barbara was doomed either way. If it weren’t for Shaun’s ridiculous plan, they all would have attended Barbara’s wake at the Winchester and been just fine. I’m not sure how he and Liz were able to enjoy their happy-ever-after underneath all that guilt.
Ramona is a drowsy cocktease, and Scott should have DTB’d her the minute she gets in lingerie and starts making out with him on the bed, then suddenly goes “I don’t feel like having sex after all.” Totally her choice to make and all, but kind of a bucket of ice water on the balls, especially from a middling chick with no personality.
In fact, while Sensitive Man Christian is making some wrongheaded case that this is some movie WOMEN WOULD LOVE, I would argue that all of the women in the movie come off terribly: the stalkery Asian chick, the bitchy ex-girlfriend, the psychotic and angry lesbian, the gossipy sister, acidic and pissy Ramona. They’re all boring and unlikable. Big problem with the movie.
Lexy, you find them all boring and unlikeable because you are fixated on underage poontang that lacks a thought in their head or the ability to put a sentence together. Any sort of woman that’s strong or does not fit that mold, immediately makes your turtle crawl back into it’s hole. Poor Lexy: strong women make him scared.
Oh yeah… KNIVES CHAU IS FREAKIN 17 YEARS OLD! Seriously, there is nothing more wrong-headed or just plain ignorant than wanting Scott and Knives together. If you think that, no matter your age, you seem to be missing the point of Ramona and Scott… who ARE THE SAME! He’s been a jerk, she’s been a jerk, and now they have dropped their jerkiness together but good forbid anyone grasp that bit in the movie.
Hopscotch, you are so out of sorts that what you posted made absolutely no sense in the real world.
I’m struggling to think of someone less qualified to comment on the taste of women than Lex….
@jeffmcm: Newer, yes. Fresher, yes. Stupid, no. I don’t have a poker face because I don’t want to get into a bad romance.
While you fanboys were jerking off to Scott Pilgrim, the real world came up with fitting comments about Julia Roberts and Jennifer Aniston.
In real world? How about the fake world of movies?
Here’s my point: I just didn’t care. And here’s my other point: Most people who saw this movie also didn’t care.
Scott Pilgrim is going to be “one of those” movies in five years. One where the people who love it do so unconditionally, and everyone else will shrug.
Hopscotch, uh no. Sorry, but you are so off the mark that it’s not even funny.
IO, who exactly is a “STRONG WOMAN”? The psychotic, deranged lesbian stalker? Or the goofy groupie stalker? How about the humorless scold ex-girlfriend who’s also defined entirely by her relationships (with Cera, with Routh)?
And Ramona isn’t so much strong as aloof, cold, and arm’s-length. And the idea that she and Scott are “jerks” wasn’t very effective– Scott just seems like a genial 22-year-old kid… Kind of obnoxious, to say nothing of moralistic, to put on him the onus of jerky treatment of women like he’s some lifelong pussyhound heartbreaker, rather than just some gawky kid going with the flow as he should at that age. Same, really, for Ramona… This idea that they’ve lived this ENTIRE LIFETIME OF BAD RELATIONSHIPS is kind of a stretch given how damn young they are. Maybe if the movie was about two thirty-somethings finally “getting it right,” you’d have a better point… But they’re still kids who’ve fucked up before and will and should fuck up again.
Chucky, it is a stupid argument you’re making. The movie is primarily about video games. Hopefully to avoid a blatant overgeneralization, but the kinds of people who play video games are more likely to be into rock than Pop/R&B. I mean, Lady Gaga is very talented and all, but it would have been a ridiculous notion to put her music into this movie.
Chucky, why do you need to come up with ridiculous reasons for this movie’s underperformance (and so many others) when there are perfectly good, rational explanations for said underperformance (waning interest in Michael Cera, overestimation of the geek audience, unclear marketing) that plenty of people on this site and others have elucidated? Why? WHY???
And, really, you’re making an impassioned argument for a movie with a character named KNIVES CHAU, where they say it KNIVES CHAU every time. Given that you’re suddenly claiming to be a middle-aged man (having aged two or three decades since Fall ’08 apparently)… don’t you feel a little silly defending something with someone called KNIVES CHAU?
And IOI, if Hopscotch says ‘I just didn’t care’ you really have to just let the argument rest there. You cannot prove to him via argument that, no, he’s wrong, he DID care!!!
Oh SMOKEY… RIP HIM APART!
“IO, who exactly is a ‘STRONG WOMAN’? The psychotic, deranged lesbian stalker?”
Roxy Ritcher is not a deranged lesbian stalker. She’s ex number 5. Did you pay attention at all while watching this film?
“Or the goofy groupie stalker? How about the humorless scold ex-girlfriend who’s also defined entirely by her relationships (with Cera, with Routh)?”
Goofy groupie stalker? Who would that be and why are you using the word STALKER? That’s just plain weird.
You also seem to not get the point of Envy Adams. She became big by forgetting who she is, and SP just happened to know her back before she sold out. She’s not defined by him as much as he’s defined by her. Again, pay attention but you seem to have a wank problem that seems to keep you from doing so.
“And Ramona isn’t so much strong as aloof, cold, and arm’s-length.”
No, no, and no. Have some of you people not met women like Ramona? She’s only acting that way because she’s scared to once again connect with another evil dillhole.
“And the idea that she and Scott are “jerks” wasn’t very effective– Scott just seems like a genial 22-year-old kid… Kind of obnoxious, to say nothing of moralistic, to put on him the onus of jerky treatment of women like he’s some lifelong pussyhound heartbreaker, rather than just some gawky kid going with the flow as he should at that age.”
Did you miss Julie going off on him? He’s just as much as a jerk as Ramona is and he’s the worst kind of jerk, the kind too caught up in believing he’s awesome to realize that he’s hurting person after person. This is why he gets the power of self-respect and admits to Ramona and Knives that he’s been a lout.
“Same, really, for Ramona… This idea that they’ve lived this ENTIRE LIFETIME OF BAD RELATIONSHIPS is kind of a stretch given how damn young they are. Maybe if the movie was about two thirty-somethings finally “getting it right,” you’d have a better point… But they’re still kids who’ve fucked up before and will and should fuck up again.”
NO, THEY WON’T AND THAT’S THE POINT!
So I’m supposed to be cheering the idea that two 22-year-old kids are never going to have another new relationship again?
Again, Scott isn’t that much of a jerk, Knives is a crazy groupie and what does it matter if he treats her badly? She’s just a goofy kid who’s coming on too strong.
Ahh, I really don’t care either. Just like Hopscotch. Just like America. It’s at best a minor, silly, occasionally clever LITTLE movie. Only in the furthest niche fringes of online nerdworld is it being taken seriously, or even acknowledged.
IOI, have you ever entertained the notion that it might be a teensy bit acceptable for someone to disagree with you on anything?
Jeff, do you even read what I post or do you just like jumping to assumptions? He stated that most people did not care and my response to that is; “Uh no, sorry, not the case.” He’s wrong with that assumption but that’s Hopscotch. He’s just too cool, man. He’s just too cool.
Lex, Knives Chau is awesome and will forever be awesome.
Jeff, he put forward an argument and I believe his argument is bullcrap. Have you ever once stood up and fought for anything you like or do you just like looking up at the ceiling?
Lex, sorry, but this movie is not going to go anywhere. It’s going to endure, it’s going to inspire, and you will probably be dealing with what Wright and his team have done for years to come. The fact that you think Knives Chau is a groupie pretty much demonstrates that you lack the ability to grasp a point when it doesn’t have a pair of boobs attached to it.
Seriously, Ramona is not 22, and she’s his dream woman. She’s the woman Scott has always wanted. Excuse him for wanting her and wanting to be in an awesome relationship with a totally bad ass woman who carries a hammer in her subspace purse. The fact that so many people do not connect with Ramona, really makes me wonder what sort of wording Wright should have used that’s stronger than DREAM WOMAN?
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/23/lol-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-matrix/
Wright could’ve started by casting someone more awesome. And likable.
Vampires Suck > Scott Pilgrim.
Again, Cera is only disliked by plumpers like yourself, who hate him for being able to wear size 32 pants. Seriously, Cera hate has to stop.
IO – you got the numbers switched, Cera wears a size 23. Waist and Length.
Earth to jeffmcm: How many a$$hole$ does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Two. So if you only had a friend you wouldn’t always be in the dark.
If Cera was wearing a size 23, he’d be a person of the Aeon Flux cartoon’s proportions. Anyway, I love the movie, and no matter what the public has against Cera, it was perfect casting for what Edgar Wright was going for (Maybe there’s a “perfect” Scott Pilgrim as he was in the comics, but Cera’s nuances and line deliveries are great here. “That’s EVIIIIIIIIL!” “So, can you do a grind thingy?”). I’ve been trying to get the people who’ve been slagging I know would love this on board. Even my now ex-girlfriend in the middle of breaking up with me last week, during the “We’re not quite at the end of the conversation, but neither of us has anything to say” moment, I said, “By the way, Scott Pilgrim’s awesome. You should see it.”
But at this point, let it go, man! This was NEVER going to be LexG’s thing, and some people just don’t like things. It was never going to be huge (Though I would’ve gone with this poster for the main one instead of the Cera playing guitar thing, not that posters matter that much or anything: http://www.movie-moron.com/wp-content/gallery/images/scott-pilgrim-poster-2.jpg ). Maybe I’m just at the age where I don’t see the need for this Internet fighting anymore, but what’s this tearing apart everyone who has a beef with it going to prove?
Joe, there’s nothing more annoying that someone stating something that’s absolutely untrue. That annoys the crap out of me and I will rail against it each and every time. Seriously, if you want to hate something put some thought into it. If not, SMOKEY SMOKEY SMOKEY!
“Whereas the campaign for EXPENDABLES, similarly nostalgic, was aimed at the kids who used to beat those kids up and watched WWF and listened to quadruple-platinum Candlebox, instead.”
LOL at Stallone fans listening to Candlebox. I think you have the wrong fanbase. Stallone fans would be nostalgic for something like Ozzy or Motley Crue, or in a sensitive moment Frank Stallone.
IO – You keep mentioning Smokey… Are you threatening people with unleashing Sheriff Buford T. Justice?
Take it back. TAKE IT BACK! Oooh ooh take it back!
JB, you never know. You really never know.
“there’s nothing more annoying that someone stating something that’s absolutely untrue”
You mean an opinion?
Chucky: Huh? Write like an ordinary person trying to be understood, not like a machine that produces non sequitur gibberish. Also, the thing where you use $ signs instead of S’s? What’s the point of that? We all know what you wrote.
IOI: Learn to read.
If Knives Chau is a stupid name, then what does that make Bella Swan? Jesus fucking Christ. A male TWILIGHT worshipper is criticizing a name…in another movie? Fuck, as soon as you make the claim that TWILIGHT is better than anything you should have your balls cut off and stuffed in your mouth so as not to comment on anything ever again.
This is why I don’t believe for a minute LexG is a real persona. Nobody, especially a straight man, can be that obtuse. Has nothing to do with not liking Scott Pilgrim. Fine. I don’t give a flying rocking chair who liked it and who didn’t. I did, my daughters (11 and 7) did. Wife refused to go as she thought it looked stupid. Fine. But my wife and daughters also think TWILIGHT is utter shit. LexG doesn’t.
It just cracks me up. The characters in Scott Pilgrim are worse/more annoying or unbelievable than the whiney, Mormon vampires?? Really?
This sort of weirdness, along with the quarterly “Dave Poland doesn’t respect this movie’s success”
are 2 reasons I love this blog and this group of folks.
For the record, I’m 39 and related to Scott Pilgrim a lot. I was that douchey indie kid 19 years ago, and I still am inside. The movie actually made me sad when I realized that while I feel that way I’m actually a 39 y/o who will NEVER be as cool, alive, wide-eyed and in the moment as the kids in the movie. I related to the nostalgia. I loved the movie. But it made me feel fucking old. I listen to The Stone Roses like it came out yesterday but it’s 20+ fucking years old. Christ. The Queen Is Dead is almost 25 years old. Teenage Fanclub can barely fill a club in the States despite their massive importance to me to this day. Same with Redd Kross. WTF? I’m old.
And I feel the movie failed because it didn’t appeal to anyone outside of a very very narrow segment. I’m in that camp. And thinking back, yea…the marketing didn’t quite do enough to hook anyone who wasn’t taken with the visuals, or who knew the source material. I think it’s a victim of moviegoers being fed up with being suckered into to things that look cool and end up being nothing but SHIT that looks cool. Clash of the Titans looked cool, too.
The date sucked, too. With more space maybe it opens to $20 million. I thought it would maybe do HELLBOY numbers (the original). $50-60 million. Will be lucky to make half of that.
Even so, I don’t really give a fuck. I loved it. I will buy it and have it in my life. I think it will pick up a nice following but it’s financial failure, like the financial failure of many many other movies, bands, books etc, doesn’t effect me one iota. That’s what is so great about these things.
Carry on.
“Bella Swan” is a DREAMY NAME befitting an AWESOME CHARACTER played by THE WORLD’S MOST CHARISMATIC ACTRESS. It is poetic and sensitive and thoughtful and fetching and haltingly hesitant and cute and SOULFUL. YOU WILL BOW TO HER. SWAN POWER. BEST FEMALE CHARACTER in the history of film. BOW.
TWILIGHT is not about “Mormon vampires”; No one in the movie is Mormon, although it’s obviously informed by Meyer’s prudish sensibility. But whatever. I like that Bella is DEMURE and INNOCENT and THINKS OF LITTLE THINGS IN HER HEAD because SHE IS SMART.
YEP YEP.
That said, I did like your paragraph about being 39 and being nostalgic and the movie affecting you for personal reasons. No qualms with that whatsoever, can totally understand that, and the best parts of the movie even hit a misanthrope like me on that wavelength: I especially liked the first date with Ramona in the snow on the swing set and floating toward the door. All of that was really touching and melancholy and captured something very real and intense… But then it goes on so many silly tangents in badly-lit alleys and grubby side streets. In the words of Beavis, “if they had just stuck to that part that was cool…”
Jeff, I have no idea what’s sadder: the fact that you think you are never wrong, or the fact that this is all about you, and you never ever get that at all.
Steve, good on you sir.
Why does it enrage old nerds so much when the movies they love only seem to appeal to other old nerds? Is it really that important that Scott Pilgrim is a niche film that only plays to middle aged dorks? It’s like America raped your puppy or something. Deal with it.
Middle-aged dorks? What? It’s one of the most important films made this year and excuse some folks for being all “WHAT THE WHAT?” towards the reaction it has received from the huddled masses.
It’s one of the most important films made this year? Seriously? You’re not joking? OK, I’m done here.
Yeah it’s a game changer. Seriously, laugh it up fuzzball but it’s just that awesome.
Game changer? Game Over you mean.
Kapow!
Seeing as you are one of those ladies that had the great taste to see The Expendables in it’s first weekend. Yeah, I am leaving it right there. Also, in ten years, the expendables will be forgotten but there will still be a PILGRIM ON THE HILL! THE HILL, LADY! THE HILL!
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/08/go-and-pay-to-see-scott-pilgrim-right-now.html
JBD’s been chugging down the Brawndo — it’s got electrolytes!
Wasn’t that the same argument made by the Watchmen people?
http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/03/11/david-hayter-tries-to-guilt-you-into-seeing-watchmen-again/
(Note: I have never read Filmjunk in my life – it’s just what came up when I googled)
Also similar to the argument made by Speed Racer fans.
Scott Pilgrim is a much better movie than Speed Racer or Watchmen, but none of them are ‘game-changers’.
The game has to have, you know, changed in order for that label to be accurate.
IOI: Blah de blah blah blah.
I don’t know what IO means when he says that SP is a “game changer.” What’s it going to change exactly?
Jeff: again, be the change you want in the world because buddy, you’ve got to change.
SB: it’s the Matrix for 2010. Any filmmaker worth their salt, will see Scott Pilgrim, and realize how to do action for the foreseeable future. That’s the game it’s changed.
I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment on Wright’s direction and how it could potentially influence other filmmakers. What is it specifically that he does that other filmmakers will look to emulate in their own work? How is his action directing so groundbreaking?
Have yet to see it but is the action all that different in form than Kung Fu Hustle? That was certainly the vibe I got from the limited marketing I saw.
Kung Fu Hustle? Not really because most of this action, if not all of it, is PRACTICAL. Even the wire work is pretty exceptional. Again SB, you just have to see it to really get how different and awesome this film is in terms of everything. HEAD WHAT VANITY FAIR SAID… SEE SCOTT PILGRIM!
I will see it IO, but I was hoping you could provide some insight into how Wright’s directing is so revolutionary. Just curious. I like wright. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are good flicks. But neither one displays revolutionary directing IMO, so I can’t help but wonder how his SP directing does.
What I would say is the thing that will most be studied by people with Scott Pilgrim is how organic the comic book elements are to the movie. I remember when people were bending over backwards to find nice things to say about Ang Lee’s Hulk, one of the big things was how Lee use certian techniques to make it look like a living comic book. Yes, forget the stupid scenes of Hulk fighting mutant dogs and the wind, the earth, and the water. The split-screened shots of helicopters arriving made like comic book frames is where it’s at! In Scott Pilgrim, the comic book elements like the sound effects texts put on screen, the split screens, and the general style are all fully integrated to the point of where it’s not a distraction. It just IS.
As for the fighting, well, it combines frantic action and is filmed so well, that it’s very coherant. Many will say otherwise, but you SEE Michael Cera kicking ass, you know it’s him, and you know what he’s going through to get to point A to point B of the fight. It’s also the editing made me not realize when they switched to stuntmen as much. There’s a couple long shots where it’s obvious, but it’s not as jarring to me as the typical action movie. That’s not revolutionary to me. It’s just very well done.