Author Topic: Scott Pilgrim vs The World  (Read 5485 times)

Little Hoover

  • It's totally boss, man.
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2010, 12:03:36 PM »
I've been inspired to read the books after seeing the film, and it certainly seems that Ramona just isn't as interesting in the film, she just carries this sort of silent, mysterious, aloofness. She seems a lot more normal in the books and jokes along with Scott more and has her own quirks and just generally seems like a much warmer, friendlier person. I can see why they might have wanted to go more in the direction they did with it, but it does leave you wondering what's supposed to be so great about her.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2010, 08:32:00 PM »
I'll give an example of something minor which narked me a bit. The fight scenes. It seems fairly obvious that they're computer game fight scenes...but they're all filmed in tight close-up, so you can't really see what's going on. No computer game has fight scenes like that, and as big a fan of them as Wright is, he must have realised that.
I thought the fights were the film's strongest element, precisely because they seemed to avoid the sort of cross cutting close-up skaky cam style that spoils so many other action movies. It may be that Wright simply used enough visual flash to cover the shaky cam up but, whatever he did, I thought the action was leagues ahead of the likes of The Bourne and Batman films, to give two recent examples.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2010, 07:18:20 PM »
The Bourne films get it bad because they're the ones that introduced shakeycam fights to dull-witted directors the world over, but Greengrass pulls them off well. Unlike, as you say, the Batman movies. Or Pirates of the Caribbean (I loved the first film, but those fight scenes were so incompetent I'm amazed the producers didn't demand reshoots).

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2010, 10:10:06 PM »
What a hollow, one-note turd of a movie this was.

chocky909

  • Member
  • **
  • zzzzz
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2010, 10:49:48 PM »
I doubt any of it's fans are labouring under the delusion that this is a particularly meaningful film with anything important to say but to my mind it's a fantastic visual and audio effort mixed with light comedy, like a pop video but without the clear promotional purpose. I'd like to see it again to watch it without the visceral impact it had the first time but as a purely stylistic effort it certainly won me over.

sirhenry

  • That worked out well...
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2010, 12:09:28 AM »
You could say the same about Roadrunner cartoons, but I'd still argue that they're great fun.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2010, 12:24:51 AM »
I really can't believe how desperately unaffecting this was.  All the ingredients were in place:  it looked and sounded brilliant, it had some great fight sequences, some half-decent lines, some nice performances, interesting editing and direction, etc.  I should have been bouncing off the walls of the cinema in an adrenaline-crazed frenzy, but I just...didn't give a shit, because ultimately, there was nothing to give a shit about.

I felt it was an engaging enough movie when I left, but the more I thought about it on the way home, the more I realised how inept it was.  There were two moments that actually made me excited, the first of which was when Ramona stepped in, and was about to fight on Scott's behalf.  That was soon undercut by a lame, Jackie Chan-style 'fighting-using-someone-elses-body' sequence that just put everything back to square one.  As for the other moment, I can't even remember it now, but it must have been in the final confrontation, probably when Knives reappeared.

I saw a random 20 minutes of Superman Returns last week when it was on telly, and in that short space of time, it got me excited.  Whether it was simply by pulling on the strings that have been there since childhood, using deep-seated musical cues and images, or whether it was because it was just holistically better, I dunno, but whatever it was, Scott Pilgrim just didn't have it.  It was a hollow, pointless experience with no weight, no consequence, and no heart.  It was probably too fucking ironically aloof to give a damn about being exciting.

The problem with this movie can be summed up with the death sequence.  Scott Pilgrim dies...who actually gave a crap?  There was no gravitas, because we saw him grab a 1-Up about ten minutes previously!  Death sequences like this are generally going to resolve in the same way, naturally, but to make it so emotionally worthless was really quite a feat.  'Hey, I learned a lesson' - yeah, great, make it even worse by pointing out the artifice for us.  Concern yourself only with being post-modern and knowing, instead of making me care and well up. 

I like the way Scott Pilgrim can do all these super-hero/videogame moves, and it's just...natural, and never explained, but then it also undercuts much of the movie by again taking away any palpable sense of risk, or development.  I just couldn't give a shit about any of the characters.  The vague, half-hearted swerve towards getting Knives and Pilgrim back together at the end also came out of nowhere, and felt bolted on, and jarring.  The complete lack of heart and soul in Scott Pilgrim was astonishing.

chocky909

  • Member
  • **
  • zzzzz
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2010, 12:54:25 AM »
I've got to agree with most of your post really. I just didn't come away with such a negative reaction as you. I was left with a sensation of seared retinas and an increased urge to start a band. It clearly was lacking any real emotional chemistry particularly between Scott and Ramona. Like I said, I'd like to watch again to see if, after all the fireworks have lost their impact, the film is as devoid of character and affection as you believe. From my now hazy memory it was just very underplayed, deadpan and cool like the character of Scott himself. Particularly since Knives was played very empathically, I can't believe that the lack of this elsewhere was unintentional. Wasn't the whole point of Scott and Ramona that they were two people who kept their emotions in bay albeit in different ways, while other characters like Knives and his flatmate were a lot more expressive? Maybe there should've been a better pay off at the end where they finally open up to each other. Again, I don't think this was a particularly 'complete' film but a turd? Are you sure you weren't just expecting too much? Perhaps you have issues with the whole Cera, Page, Schwartzman scene and find them smug and aloof? I don't but I can see why people do.

Superman Returns is good and it's a damn shame it flopped. I would've liked to have seen Singer do another one at least.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2010, 01:10:22 AM »
Perhaps you have issues with the whole Cera, Page, Schwartzman scene and find them smug and aloof?

I don't even know what that is, to be honest.  I love Cera in Arrested Development, and have yet to see Superbad, which I guess you're referencing.  As for expectation, nope, nothing like that - I avoid trailers like the plague where possible, and like to go into something with as few preconceptions as possible.  I'm just not happy to cover for the failings by pointing at the pretty pictures, because I need to be moved.  It's actually really easy to move me, too, I'm a mawkish, excitable twat (like Knives), and I literally did a little skip in the air when walking home after Inception.  (It was the [spoiler]realisation that he didn't look at the top to see if it fell or not, which mirrored Ariadne locking it in the safe, that did that.  I did a little hop when we unravelled that part.[/spoiler])

I felt it was, y'know, ok, and I liked little moments like how neurotic he was about his hair, but the full realisation of how shallow and superficial the whole thing had to be to leave me so resolutely unmoved, really turned apathy into antipathy.  Without any emotional impact, you might as well just sit and coo at Winamp visualisations for two hours.

chocky909

  • Member
  • **
  • zzzzz
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2010, 01:27:29 AM »
I do fear I will feel the same way after repeat viewings. Wright should've got Jessica Stephenson involved to inject some warmth. And to play Ramona. And have Simon Pegg play Scott.

Nik Drou

  • Heh-HAY! *glasses*
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2010, 03:59:53 AM »
I saw this movie last night and left with a larger sense of joy and life-affirmation than I've felt in quite a long time.  I loved both Inception and Toy Story 3 and, if pushed, I'd say they were stronger movies on the whole.  But this, I don't think I've seen anything quite like it.  I know that sounds hyperbolic, but it's pretty much true.  It's also great to see a celebration of youth that doesn't make me feel like shit about not being so young anymore.   At the risk of sounding even more Harry Knowles, I left actually wanting to pick up a guitar and start a band.

Concerns about lack of depth or emotion are understandable, but I can't really see it being any other way.  Scott is a shallow person, Ramona is a shallow person, all of the characters are shallow, self-concerned and the movie knows full well of this.  It's just as much a parody of their lifestyle as it is an idealisation of it.  It's about how silly it is to get so worked up about a girl or a guy, but also how good it can feel.  It's not style over substance.  The substance is the style.

I liked that it doesn't end with Scott and Ramona kissing, or Scott simply 'winning' her affections.  They come to terms with the fact that each are looking for their own thing, but decide to do it together.  They may well break up down the line, but it's all good.  There's no sense throughout that they are particularly well-suited or deserving of each-other, which was oddly refreshing to see.  If they suddenly had a heart-to-heart or if there was somehow more at stake, it wouldn't really have worked.  I can't imagine myself 'giving a crap' about Scott dying near the end like I would a conventional movie, because it's patently absurd.  It's a joke, a knowingly OTT device to inspire a minor revelation that gets him from shallow to not-quite-so-shallow.  But the film's knowing in an inclusive, rather than an aloof, 'ironic' way.  In fact, I think the characters succeed in being likeable because they don't have that self-awareness of their own shallowness.  I was also impressed that it largely managed to achieve a stylised kind of dialogue and direction without being insufferable in that Diablo Cody kind of way.

It's not going to work for everyone, that's cool, but I can't see it as soulless because it's heart is so resolutely on its sleeve throughout.  The fight scenes don't have 'danger' in the conventional sense.  They're like musical numbers; bursts of absurdity that stand in for all the awkward convos and dealing with issues that the characters probably should be having but are too emotionally inept to manage.  Oh, and loooads of gags in there, by the way.  The whole Vegan Police sequence was hilarious and one of the weirdest things I've seen in a movie in a while.  Mega-Scott......There's lots of silly ideas like that in there for me to chew over.

Not every gag works, especially as some of the comic book-style captioning serves to signpost moments that would have played better in subtlety.  Come to think of it, there's not a whole lot of subtlety to be found.  It'll be interesting to see if some of the characters flesh out at all with a second viewing, but it's all good.

Scott Pilgrim is a movie that, for lack of a better term, 'gets on with it'.  It knows what it's going for from the first frame and doesn't stop doing it till the last.  There's no emotional manipulation or part where you're supposed to well up near the end.  It's fun.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2010, 04:32:39 AM »
Buggerance. I spend ages attempting to come up with a reply to Neil's posts and you go and do it first and better.

I can see where you're coming from, Neil. I hold similar feelings towards Death Proof - a similar 'film geek' excercise in recreating a certain style - whose lack of sympathetic characters turned simple boredom into outright anger.

However... what Nik said, basically.

Quote
I'm just not happy to cover for the failings by pointing at the pretty pictures
I think this seems a bit harsh towards the folk who enjoyed it. I'd need to see it again, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's actually a sort of anti-romantic comedy. As I mentioned before, the power of love's failure is an interesting subversion of the cliché and I certainly agree that there's milage in the idea that Ramona is actually the wrong one for Scott. (there's other stuff, too, but that I'll think of that after sleep.)

Or maybe I'm just suffering from arrested development. Arf!

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #42 on: September 08, 2010, 07:52:12 AM »
I haven't seen it yet, but I did feel that the last book was really shit in comparison to what went before. The movie seems to have been a flop financially.

Famous Mortimer

  • War - it's fantastic!
    • International Syndicate of Cult Film Critics
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #43 on: September 08, 2010, 08:01:10 AM »
Quote
Scott is a shallow person, Ramona is a shallow person, all of the characters are shallow, self-concerned and the movie knows full well of this.  It's just as much a parody of their lifestyle as it is an idealisation of it.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. I've been trying to remember any element of the film that could be considered a parody of their lifestyle, and am coming up blank. It's an affirmation of their lifestyle, and there are some bits of it that are worth affirmation, but lots of it which is ripe for parody, which this film definitely did not provide.

My mate at the Bilge Pump blog reminded me that in the books, the fight scenes are probably really happening in Scott's head...which makes sense, and works in the context of the books. Carry the same idea over to the films, okay, but we're given no idea at all that this is happening (given the exposition-heavy nature of the dialogue, the tiniest hint that this was the case would have been appropriate) and there's times when it makes no sense.

I think the biggest problem, and one which would have made most of the other problems go away, was that the film wasn't funny. The bits where jokes were supposed to be - the catty remarks by the roommate, the repeating of the fact his girlfriend was 17, the fight scene zingers - just weren't anything like as funny as they should have been, and given the TV comedy that Wright has been involved in, doubly disappointed.

But even more annoying than that was the quality that the film showed in segments. Brandon Routh, the vegan police, and Chris Evans up to his death scene were all excellent and seemingly beamed in from a slightly funnier, better made film. If only it had had more of that level.

Re: the box office, it's been an interesting time on the various pop-culture websites, where they're trying to square the circle by saying no-one expected it to make money, everyone will work again, it'll still be coming out on a features-heavy blu-ray, etc. I don't care much myself either, but wow do I ever hope Hollywood realises there are other young nerdy-man actors than Michael Cera.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2010, 01:19:41 PM »
I think this seems a bit harsh towards the folk who enjoyed it.

If that's harsh, then surely it's also harsh to suggest the possibility that people who don't enjoy it, simply had expectations that were too high, or hate the scene Cera is involved with. 

Pointing at the pretty pictures, and not caring about the lack of motivation, character development or plot is really the only way I could feasibly understand myself enjoying this movie, anyway.  There's no real story of interest, because it's too concerned with just fast-forwarding through all these fight sequences that they have to cram in, but even those aren't interesting, because they come one after another, and again, there's really nothing at stake.  It's impossible to care about any of it, and if that's some kind of meta-commentary, then give me something like the first 5 or 10 minutes of Up over this from now until infinity.  Watching shallow, aloof, soulless people being shallow, aloof and soulless verges on outright dull, particularly when - as FM says - so much of the humour falls flat.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 02:54:08 PM by Neil »

sirhenry

  • That worked out well...
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2010, 02:04:28 PM »
Having read the comics and never seen Cera beforehand seems to have help enormously with this film. The comic makes it clear that the whole story is written from Scott's pov, which is hollow, cool (in the original sense of not showing emotion) and massively self-mythologising. He has the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old (remember my son, Neil?) and sees his whole life as a game.

That the film completely misses out explaining this is a terrible mistake as it seems to make it all totally meaningless, but with that prior knowledge I'd say it works. The same is true about Ramona's emotional detatchment, which makes her character in the film impossible to empathise with, rather than being another adolescent who's afraid of commitment.

Nik Drou

  • Heh-HAY! *glasses*
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2010, 02:46:22 PM »
That the film completely misses out explaining this is a terrible mistake as it seems to make it all totally meaningless, but with that prior knowledge I'd say it works. The same is true about Ramona's emotional detatchment, which makes her character in the film impossible to empathise with, rather than being another adolescent who's afraid of commitment.

I think that sort of thing is better left ambiguous.  If you have any kind of proviso from the start about what's real and what isn't, it'd spoil the fun.  I think it's possible to empathise with Ramona, because she's forced to be the centre of attention and her baggage is coming back to haunt her when she's trying to move on with her life.  I also think the film does a good job of taking her down from a pedestal that a lesser film would have kept her on.  Her detachment is a flaw, but one that makes sense in the context of the movie.

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2010, 02:54:17 PM »
I think the whole adaption was a bit hampered by the "7-evil ex's" thing - in the film the fights just ended up taking up too much of the runtime and squished everything else out. As it is, the film just ends up being a bunch of stuff that happened. Still I enjoyed it and a bit surprised it's done so badly at the box office.

Little Hoover

  • It's totally boss, man.
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2010, 04:18:00 PM »
I think the main difference I found to Neil & FM is that I don't think a lot of the humour fell flat, I was chuckling pretty consistently throughout. It may have helped that I was seeing it in a group setting with other people who were enjoying it and was generally in a good mood before seeing it. I will say though that there's a difference between the characters being shallow and the actual writing of those characters being shallow. It's perfectly possible to write characters who are shallow and vapid but in a way that's interesting to an audience, and I suppose the film didn't entirely succeed in that regard.

Famous Mortimer

  • War - it's fantastic!
    • International Syndicate of Cult Film Critics
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2010, 05:41:11 PM »
I think the main difference I found to Neil & FM is that I don't think a lot of the humour fell flat, I was chuckling pretty consistently throughout. It may have helped that I was seeing it in a group setting with other people who were enjoying it and was generally in a good mood before seeing it. I will say though that there's a difference between the characters being shallow and the actual writing of those characters being shallow. It's perfectly possible to write characters who are shallow and vapid but in a way that's interesting to an audience, and I suppose the film didn't entirely succeed in that regard.
I'll stop having a go in a minute, but I saw it in a large group too - a few fans of Edgar Wright's other films, a few fans of the comic, and a few people who just wanted to go and see the pretty moving pictures. There was a lot of goodwill towards the film before we went in, is what I'm saying, although maybe your lot were just a happier bunch than us.

Quote
I think it's possible to empathise with Ramona, because she's forced to be the centre of attention and her baggage is coming back to haunt her when she's trying to move on with her life.
She doesn't seem all that annoyed about her seven evil exes though - when they're having the first conversation about it she doesn't exactly seem upbeat but she's certainly not upset about telling Scott he has to battle them. I think the film makes it very difficult to empathise with her - in the books she at least has a personality. The film Ramona is just a distant facial expression with funny-coloured hair on top. I think the book made a much better job of having her appear like a human being, where the film just assumes we'll understand why Scott goes through with it all for her.

Tiny Poster

  • Dr. Cod will see you now
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2010, 09:04:18 PM »
As someone who hasn't seen the film yet, but is currently on Book 4, I'm going to wade in here with my excellent thoughts.

FM, you probably can't answer this, but there's no evidence in the books that the fights are imaginary. On the contrary - the cast pretty much rally round to aid him, or at least watch, in some way.

Also, the fights are a metaphor for dealing with your partner's baggage, right? Needing to prove that you aren't 'evil' like they were. Also, Scott's infatuation with Ramona stems from her literally getting inside his head. I don't know if the film pulls this off...

The books are all about relationships, with Scott and the fights as a framing device. Everybody has some connection to each other, somehow. The film should exist as a piece in its own right, but from the sound of it the emotion and laid-back pacing of the books has been eschewed in favour of WAY COOL FIGHTS and pop culture circle-jerking.

Little Hoover

  • It's totally boss, man.
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2010, 09:13:47 PM »
I'll stop having a go in a minute, but I saw it in a large group too - a few fans of Edgar Wright's other films, a few fans of the comic, and a few people who just wanted to go and see the pretty moving pictures. There was a lot of goodwill towards the film before we went in, is what I'm saying, although maybe your lot were just a happier bunch than us.
She doesn't seem all that annoyed about her seven evil exes though - when they're having the first conversation about it she doesn't exactly seem upbeat but she's certainly not upset about telling Scott he has to battle them. I think the film makes it very difficult to empathise with her - in the books she at least has a personality. The film Ramona is just a distant facial expression with funny-coloured hair on top. I think the book made a much better job of having her appear like a human being, where the film just assumes we'll understand why Scott goes through with it all for her.
Well yes, I kind of expected someone to counter me by saying "I saw it with friends and we all thought it was shit" I just meant in my own experince it may have helped. But I certainly agree the books do make Romana seem far more human.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2010, 11:07:42 PM »
FLAWLESS VICTORY!

Went to it knowing nothing about the comic book series (though I played the game up to the twin battle) and came away very pleased indeed. No idea what was cut but everything that was onscreen made sense and I never got the impression that I was missing out on anything at all. I'm sure if I'd read the books I'd be moaning about how X is missing their backstory and the relationship between Y and Z is glossed over, but Wright managed to fit an extraordinary amount of plot into those two hours and I don't think I'd have wanted it to go on any longer.

Well, I could've stood a little more Wallace. Where's my Wallace movie?

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #53 on: September 08, 2010, 11:50:30 PM »
Hmm, I should probably join in that discussion rather than just throwing my opinions about, shouldn't I?

It's a bit of a cunty thing to say, I know, but I think it's true: appreciation for Scott Pilgrim depreciates in relation to how well you can remember being in your early 20s.[nb]Okay; also how much your early 20s period resembles mine.[/nb] Yes, the movie makes an epic battle out of some guy's quest to date a girl he hardly knows, but that's what it's like when you're 23 and still getting over your first broken heart: everything is an epic battle. This girl is the love of your life! Your band could be the next big thing! You're an adult now, doing adult things! Life is one big, thrilling video game and you're the hero!

It's only later, after the love of your life turned into another failed relationship and your amazing band split up so you could all get 'real' jobs, that you gain some perspective on life and see that, yeah, you were a bit of a dick and she was just another girl and your band kind of sucked even if the people in that one club did love them that one time.

And I disagree that the film was emotionally hollow, though I can see how it might appear so. The Knives/Scott/Ramona triangle had enough weight, and the characters were sufficiently aware of their own emotional failings, that I was genuinely concerned that it might end badly for one or all of them during the first Gideon fight.

Quite surprised that Neil was skipping away from Inception, though - there was a film that (though I loved it to pieces) lacked humanity, passion and empathy. Much like all of Nolan's stuff.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 12:19:09 AM by Mister Six »

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2010, 12:57:09 AM »
Yo, where the fuck is Wallace?!

If that's harsh, then surely it's also harsh to suggest the possibility that people who don't enjoy it, simply had expectations that were too high, or hate the scene Cera is involved with.
The second one maybe (after all, only an idiot would go to a film starring someone they hate and then complain about it) but I don't think it unfair to suggest that your expectations may have affected your opinion. The film didn't work for you and that's fair enough, but "pointing at the pretty pictures" does seem to characterize those who enjoyed it as slack jawed idiots[nb]only a half-truth in my case[/nb]. An equivalent riposte would be along the lines of "Chill out, have a laqer."

I guess the crux of my argument is that enjoying what the film did well isn't the same as glossing over its flaws. I agree entirely that Scott's infatuation should have been played more effectively, although I still think it's to the film's credit that whether or not they're actually right for each other remains ambiguous. The stakes weren't based on whether he would win the fights, but of it would all turn out to be worth it.

And what it did well, I think it did very well indeed. Plenty of films spend far more money throwing action and effects at the audience, but still leave me cold (Transformers, for example). To make something this damned entertaining is no mean feat. Perhaps it's because I get the impression that Wright is the proverbial kid in a candy store with this and I was carried along by his enthusiasm. You can hear the glint in his eye.[/sotcaa]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2010, 01:34:00 AM »

The second one maybe (after all, only an idiot would go to a film starring someone they hate and then complain about it) but I don't think it unfair to suggest that your expectations may have affected your opinion. The film didn't work for you and that's fair enough, but "pointing at the pretty pictures" does seem to characterize those who enjoyed it as slack jawed idiots. An equivalent riposte would be along the lines of "Chill out, have a laqer."

I explained what I meant by that in the post you're quoting, but really, there's little in it but pretty pictures, so I don't see why it's apparently a "harsh" comment, given how endelessly, over-the-top stylised it is.

How is that remotely like the Balls Of Steel bloke?

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2010, 01:41:17 AM »
there's little in it but pretty pictures, so I don't see why it's apparently a "harsh" comment
Some people don't see it that way.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2010, 01:45:01 AM »
Some people don't see it that way.

You, you mean.  How is it equivalent to the Balls Of Steel bloke?

EDIT:  I mean, I've already said twice it applied only to how I felt I would have to appreciate the movie, so I don't know why you're going out of your way to try and make out I'm in some way insulting everyone that liked it. 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 02:04:11 AM by Neil »

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2010, 02:06:25 AM »
Me, Nik, Mister Six.

I didn't actually know the genesis of that quote, so if there's more to it, I apologise. The point I was trying (and perhaps failing) to make is that you think the film is hollow, thus those who liked it only did so for superficial reasons*, which I think is untrue. An equally untrue counterpoint would be to say that the film is fun and you're just being a big killjoy which, I must stress, I am not saying.


*not in an overly nasty way. I know you weren't calling folk twats for liking it, or anything like that. It's just an implication I read into it. Water under the bridge I hope.

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2010, 02:09:51 AM »
Me, Nik, Mister Six.

Where have they said I'm being "harsh"? 

Quote
The point I was trying (and perhaps failing) to make is that you think the film is hollow, thus those who liked it only did so for superficial reasons, which I think is untrue.

That's ridiculous, though...I found the film hollow and style over substance, I should be allowed to express that without it being made out that I am, by extension, insulting everyone who actually enjoyed it.  You're being really over-sensitive.