• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Honest Trailers - Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zero315 said:
Oooh, so you mean Scott was an actual character instead of an outdated sterotype, gotcha. He also talked about comics and stuff too, he wasn't just into video games.
Click to expand...
Thats kinda my point. Book Scott was a pretty typical mid-2000s guy, decent looking, decent with women, he's in a band, he can hold his own in a fight, and like many normal dudes, he plays videogames and talks about dorky stuff. He's not a capital N stereotype nerd. That's why I said: secret nerd. His persona isn't radiating dorkiness, until he opens his mouth about videogames or whatever.

But the for the movie it's like ... Oh he's into videogames, so we have to cast him with a nerdy actor with nerdy mannerisms. The subtlety was lost. They doubled down on the idea that he's a big geek.

I saw Book Scott as a more confidant dude ... Not awkward and sheepish. Not adorkable. Probably better looking, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't hate the movie version at all. But I think it does present a slightly different character. One is the cool guitar player who just happens to have a Zelda tattoo, and one is the total dweeb who somehow dates above his league anyway.
 
Miktar said:
What do you consider 'young crowd', I wonder, since to me it felt like the movie was aimed at 30-somethings.
Click to expand...

I based it off purely bs evidence. I was in my early 30s and would get sucked into debates with teen and 20 year old friends and family about how hipster it felt to me instead of gamey but they would argue how it was the GOAT. Probably why I associate it that way.
 
The movie and the book are entirely different stories with the same narrative setup. Scott's arc isn't even the same in the movies as the book.

The book is a coming of age story, and Scott's journey to self awareness and adulthood is mirrored by the journies of people around him (Kim, Knives, Wallace, Ramona). It's slower, and told over a much longer period of time, which both further emphasize Scott's need to change.

The movie is a much smaller scale love story about two characters (Scott, and to a lesser extent Ramona) who have fallen into respective cycles of self defeat meeting and motivating each other to try and be happy together.

I think the movie's decision was the right one. It's a 2 hour story as opposed to the 8 hour one that a more direct adaptation of the books would require, and still is faithful to the universe and the characters in the process despite the massively reduced scope of the narrative.
 
Big fan of the Cornetto trilogy but I couldn't get into Scott Pilgrim. All of the characters came off as obnoxious douchebags to me.
 
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World would have been a great mini-series. I don't mind that the film had to make concessions due to time, I just mind that in doing so, it under-developed almost all of the characters, including Ramona to such a degree that she feels like a completely different character.
 
Miktar said:
What do you consider 'young crowd', I wonder, since to me it felt like the movie was aimed at 30-somethings.
Click to expand...
People who are now 30-somethings, maybe. The people who would have been in their early 20s when the comic came out, same as Scott himself. Let's remember that even the movie came out 6 years ago.

Scott was definitely born in the 80s, came of age in the mid 2000s. An older millennial. He references 8 and 16-bit videogames, implying they're formative experiences.

I mean the movie is about people living in crappy cheap living situations, playing in crappy bands, and learning about love. It's decidedly a young adulthood show.
 
This was really fun. Loved the movie, the game was alright, the comic books deviated a lot by the end and had a lot of ekstra stuff that gave more substance to characters in the movie, were also really good.
 
I really disliked the comic when I read it and I'm not a fan of cera at all

But yet with all of that against it I still loved the film. Edgar Wright's one of the best to ever tackle the comic book genre and he adapted it so well. Very quick pacing and clever visual design. Pretty interesting stylistic decisions here, plus it was hilarious

And when you can somehow make cera look good holding up a fight against Chris Evans and a bunch of stuntmen you done good in the action department

.
 
Did not enjoy the movie, never read the comic. As the honest trailer said, it's style over substance. I just didn't really care for the style all that much. Seemed really lazy IMO.
 
Surface of Me said:
Did not enjoy the movie, never read the comic. As the honest trailer said, it's style over substance. I just didn't really care for the style all that much. Seemed really lazy IMO.
Click to expand...

Can never take criticisms seriously when they levy style over substance as some kind of negative.

Unless the film is actually trying to be meaningful beyond a visual level then there's nothing wrong with an over emphasis of style.
 
I find Scott Pilgrim, comic or movie, to basically be an excuse for a bunch of cute game/nerd references. Similar to Ready Player One but told by someone with some writing talent, if you will. As such, the movie is the superior version of the story to me, because it's way more impressive to see a Zelda reference in a multi-million dollar motion picture than drawn in some guy's indie press pseudo-manga.

Also the "What's the password" gag in the film is funnier than anything in the comic.
 
The film was awful and devoid the charm that was the comic book. That's what you get for casting charisma-less Cera in the title role.

The only memorable and amusing thing was Evans playing douche jock but that only lasted five minutes or less.
 
BocoDragon said:
People who are now 30-somethings, maybe. The people who would have been in their early 20s when the comic came out, same as Scott himself. Let's remember that even the movie came out 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

What? D:
Seriously, I wanted to argue that no, the movie can't be that old, that it was released 2-3 years ago at most. But then I looked it up on IMDB and it was indeed released 6 years ago.

I feel old :(
 
Love the comics, don't love the film. What I find endearing in black-and-white manga-esque comic art, I find irritating in live action.
 
KTallguy said:
I think that Michael Cera is fucking annoying in the film, not that he's bad in general but Scott never came off as such a loser in the comics. He's waaaaaaaaaaay too whiny in the film. Everything else was actually decent, it was an ok/fun movie as a whole, but whoever wrote his lines...misrepresents the brand IMO.
Click to expand...

Scott absolutely comes off as a loser in the comics. Sure, he gets laid a few times and gets a hot girl, but the guys just a loser. He doesn't hold a job for half 6he book series, mooches off all his friends, treats women like shit, and that's just from what I can remember of the top of my head.
 
Mr_Zombie said:
What? D:
Seriously, I wanted to argue that no, the movie can't be that old, that it was released 2-3 years ago at most. But then I looked it up on IMDB and it was indeed released 6 years ago.

I feel old :(
Click to expand...
Oh I feel the same. My heart feels like this was merely yesterday, but my head keeps a running tally of how old everything actually is. It's always older than you intuitively feel ;P
 
They should have called the movie "References."

Remember that thing you liked? Well, here's a reference to it! Isn't that cool? All the stuff you like referenced in one movie!
 
See,I loved the movie enough to own it twice, loved the game enough to get it on both the 360 and PS3, and own all but 1 of the books.

The movie is probably my 2nd favorite of all 3, after the books.

The movie is a great movie, especially with all the effects and shout-outs. Plus, it has a killer soundtrack and Brie Larson dressed as Misa Amane.

It's not the deep or poignant, but it is a great movie.
 
Kas said:
Scott absolutely comes off as a loser in the comics. Sure, he gets laid a few times and gets a hot girl, but the guys just a loser. He doesn't hold a job for half 6he book series, mooches off all his friends, treats women like shit, and that's just from what I can remember of the top of my head.
Click to expand...

I think he's using the word loser differently.

Of course Book Scott is a spaz and an early-20s deadbeat in love and life.

But I get the impression he's talking about Cera's personality, which is dweebish and whiny. That kind of loser.
 
Discotheque said:
Can never take criticisms seriously when they levy style over substance as some kind of negative.

Unless the film is actually trying to be meaningful beyond a visual level then there's nothing wrong with an over emphasis of style.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I also said I dont care for the style in this.
 
Richie said:
Whose idea was to force six books' worth of story into a movie barely 2 hours long?
Click to expand...

I know I read it somewhere, but I can't find it for the life of me... Edgar Wright said that when going up they originally only made the first two Lord of the Rings novels into animated films (Fellowship and Two Towers), but never made Return of the King. He said he waited forever to see the conclusion to the epic, but it never came until the Peter Jackson live-action trilogy. He knew he would never be about to get the studio to commit to a 6 picture deal (or even let him shoot them back-to-back), so he knew if the full story was ever going to be told, he would have to tell it all in a single film.

EDIT:

Also, Guillermo Del Toro knows what is up with this film.

ZZ1C7CF4AB.jpg
 
InfiniteBento said:
Michael Cera was the absolute worst choice for Scott.
Click to expand...

In his defense he's always typecasted for "awkward quirky teen" roles.

I agreed with the review, the characters were pretty horrible people. Loved the movie for what it was, a fun romp with gaming references even if Scott felt like a Gary Stu with an identity crisis.
 
While the book was better, I still loved the movie.

Though the end was obviously re done due to Ramona being sidelined in the last fight and then hooking back up with her. He's supposed to end up wiht Ramona anyways so I could live with the wonky ending.
 
Didn't enjoy this one. Loved the movie, really loved the graphic novel, dislike the movie.

If Seconds gets a film deal, I may never see it.
 
Toxi said:
As someone who still somehow hasn't watched Scott Pilgrim, the video's summary of the movie reminds me a lot of No More Heroes.
Click to expand...

that's what I felt when I watched it

it helped that video game iconography was fucking everywhere

like, this is the kind of movie where they straight up play the Street Fighter Alpha 3 K.O. sound at the end of a fight.
 
Michael Cera was totally miscast, never bought Ramona being into him as this trailer rightly points out. Apart from that it was great, I'd have been pissed if he ended up with Knives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Scott Adams
2
61
1K
negator2vc replied
  • Poll
Peppermint vs. Spearmint
19
238
Dr.Morris79 replied
The Wrecking Crew | Momoa vs Bautista Action-Comedy | Official Trailer
20
537
AJUMP23 replied
Ask yourself and be honest... Do you congratulate women on Women's Day?
2 3
133
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
TimeOut’s Best Cities in the World 2026
2
80
1K
LyricalShrike replied
Top Bottom