f13.net

Read the manga after seeing the first trailer. Second trailer is much better for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NUBVcit5VM

I don't need to read any manga that looks fun as hell.

That looks absurd.  :drill:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that this movie will be even better than I Am Legend.

That looks annoyingly funny. Putting this on my to-watch list.

I'd heard of this but thought it was pretty much what the opening minute of the trailer made it look like it would be. I didn't realise there was also awesome.

The premise on its own looks awful, but it might be palatable with enough CGI and laughs.

I really want to see it, but it's still a Michael Cera movie and the only person I want to punch in the throat more than Michael Cera is Jonah Hill. Well, him and the entire cast of the Twilight movies, but I digress.

Give this one a chance. If you won't, then read the manga at a book store. It's aimed at a younger crowd but the manga brings up a lot of video game stuff from the 80's, modern music... etc. It's for the MTV Generation but I never watched MTV and it's still fucking awesome.

It having Michael Cera is actually a perfect fit given the main character; in fact, him being involved is almost a non-factor given the strength of the original work.

Ditto. I was like, hm, teen romance comedy or something, all my friends are excited, might as well check out the trailer, oh how cute OH WAIT WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED!!!

It looks like a young teen version of No More Heroes with more awesome.  :drill:

Edit by Trippy: oops I fucked up your post.

Ooooooh, you bastages! I'm being repressed, I tell ya!

What I think I put here was that I read the comic and it is all sorts of kick ass and that the supporting cast looks solid, But Michael fucking Cera.  :mob:

It looks awesome, but does Cera have to be in every damn movie made now?  Wasn't Jesse Eisenberg available?

Hollywood can only handle one geek at a time amongst the pretty people, so he gets overused.  Much like it can only handle 3-5 Asians (only one of whom can be elderly) and three black guys.  No, Morgan Freeman and Will Smith don't count.

Works for stoners too.

I'm a big Michael Cera fan, and this looks fucking awesome. I want.

This could go either way.  If it can get past its gimmick, the movie could be pretty good.  Kick Ass being a success.  Repo Man being a failure.

Kick Ass's gimmick was fully fleshed out with a cohesive ending. Repo Men was nothing but a gimmick that had the story it was based off of end at about halfway through the movie, with a lot of elements inserted to try and make it complete. Scott Pilgrim has had 5 of its 6 volumes released, with the 6th volume being done differently between the manga and the movie studio according to the creator. So, I'm thinking it will be 5/6th's as effective?

I've never read the books, but I've always been interested in the goofy concept. This looks to be pretty fun, and in the very capable hands of Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz), who seems perfectly able to fit camp and awesome together.

Actually that's kinda encouraging to me, because I get the feeling the end of Scott Pilgrim the Manga is going to translate poorly to film. Just a feeling.

Likely. They cut some of the subplots that will probably see realization in the manga in order to fit into the timeframe of a movie. But it works for me because the final manga is coming out before the movie, so it'll be good to see what the differences are.

If you are criticizing Repo Men, then have at it.  If you are criticizing Repo Man, then shut your dirty whore mouth.

Would you really call this a Manga?  I glanced at the artwork and it doesn't really look Manga'ish.  Also, you know, its not Japanese.

I think it's mostly because of the style/size the book is, though the artwork is definitely asian inspired.

Still not fucking manga though.

And yes, I'm a snob, but no matter how much I may like it, GTO it fucking ain't.

I'd call it a digest, because it is in fact a digest.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Blargh, you guys beat me to it: not manga. Japanese inspired independent comic by Irishy Irishy O'Irishname guy.

Also, the only difference between Kick Ass and Repoman is twenty five years and a standard movie ending for their respective eras.

The true test of "is it a manga?": are fat girls in Barnes and Noble reading the entire thing standing in front of the shelf?

I just like the word manga to describe the style and format.

Manga is a digest too! Just sayin.

TV spot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5W5o4AshrY)


 :drill:

Coming from a Manga or Digest doesn't dilute the fact that the movie looks awesome.

For a while there I was like, why is the fight with the twins a Battle of the Bands? They weren't even musicians in the comic. Then I came across the game's E3 footage....

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-scott-pilgrim/101185

"let's do a game that seems like it was made by japanese people who couldn't actually understand the scott pilgrim comics". -Bryan Lee O'Malley, on his .ning forum.


 :ye_gods:

Fat Chun Li wearing a cape, with a Dragon Warrior slime on her head.

 :ye_gods:

The art style of that looked EERILY fimiliar to something someone posted a while back (with freaky zombie babies exploding when the hero killed them)

Are you speaking of Pirate Baby's Cabana Battle Street Fight 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5zpNfTfGZU)?

So does he eventually become the 8th Evil Ex?  That seems like the only logical ending.    :drill:

Yep, that would be it.

I'm guessing the movie will end happily ever after, while the comic will end with a lonely kid playing online games, and the whole series was a game all along. The video game ending will probably involve pudding and elves and giant robots or something even weirder.

Makes sense, appartently he is making the games art.

I cannot imagine a more perfect format for a Scott Pilgrim. It looks like his sister is 2P.

Art style matches perfectly. What it could use is just a tiny bit more River City Ransom, as it looked more like Streets of Rage.

Oh man. This one looks made for the fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt4vhSqtFQ

"Cleaning lady?" Lolz

Goddamnit, that keeps looking more awesome every time I see anything on it.

She dusts...

I get the feeling this movie will be awesome, make like $2 in the theater but go on to become a cult classic.

It's almost like it's an Edgar Wright flick.

I'm looking forward to this one.  It looks completely over the top silly.  Even Brandon Routh looked good, and that's saying something!

My local comic shop has these books on prominent display. I am unsure whether I want to buy 'em now and possibly ruin the movie (hey, that's not how it goes!) or buy 'em and have some fun comics to read.

The best way to approach the difference is to realize they intended it to be radically different. Like, apeshittingly different. Two totally different stories. There are some characters who were robotic scientists in the books who were changed to be rock and roll stars, and there are armies of clones.

To further this, they made the video game to have nothing at all to do with any of it. The Gay Roommate is a shopkeeper, the rock star chick rides around in K.I.T.T. from Knight Rider, and there are armies of zombies.

It makes it all go down easier.  :grin:

So I can safely get the Scott Pilgrim TPBs and not worry. Got it.

Um, was that Superman wearing Freddie Prinze Jr's wig from the Scooby Doo movies?

Yes. The ex-boyfriend cast list is quite interesting in its range.

I just realized that's the cheerleader from death proof and Bruce Willis daughter in the last Die Hard movie, what a huge freaking difference a wig makes.

Evil Ex Girlfriend Roxie was also the President's daughter in ID4!  :awesome_for_real:

Fucking. Amazing.

The fight scenes were great and they even gave proper respect to the music. I enjoyed it a lot. Kieran Culkin was an amazing Stephen Stiles.

Wallace Wells. (just sayin)

Yeah I saw it tonight, myself. Better than I thought it'd be, and I thought it would be freaking awesome. I think what makes it work is it defines a generation that never had definition.

Damn it, knew I got them mixed up.

This. The opening credits floored me and from there on it was just a lightning adrenaline ride of awesome.

If you grew up with a (S)NES, this movie pretty much was made for you and explicitly for you. Anyone from the pre-gaming generations is going to be puzzled as fuck.

I really like the different approach they took to fight-scene choreography, moving away from the 90s-esque shakycam stuff. Especially the really subtle motion trails they put on all the hand-to-hand stuff.

This is getting creamed at the box office. I really wish Wright would have a break-out hit as his movies are just too good for the amount of money they make. I'm worried he won't be able to get stuff financed.

This movie will live and die on word of mouth. It has cult hit written all over it. The 60something mainstream critics are murdering it. It is not for them. It is for us.

Go.

Watch.

See.

Where are you seeing the box office results so soon?

The theater was less than half full when I saw it on opening night. It made me  :sad_panda:

Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/) is usually pretty good. It puts "SPvsW" at #4, while "The Expendables" earned $13.2m for #1.

I saw it today too. It started out a little slow but once he and Ramona got together it really picked up and I loved every single second.

Highlights:

I actually liked Knives Chou by the end of the movie. She was annoying at the start.
Kieran Culkin was awesome as the gay room mate. I loved him texting in his sleep.
I also really enjoyed the dance-dance ninja game for some reason. That scene cracked me up.

In a way I had mixed feelings about the end:

At the megaplexes in my area it's only showing on a single screen per theater (except for one place which has it one two) which means the distributor and theaters expect it to be a "small" movie rather than a big one like, say, The Expendables which is showing on 3 to 4 screens per theater.

I was quite surprised on how good the movie was. The highlight for me was the Sienfield music and the following scene devoted to it.

Based on the weekend, this thing will struggle to get to 20-25 million domestic and will likely do basically nothing internationally (might do some business in UK, Japan and SK, but not much). This on a 60M budget.   I can't see this thing making any money. Each time he does this Wright's ability to get financing goes down.

DVD sales might save it.

Not that I care but I always found it amusing and indicative of that "First to Report" style of news when they can announce Friday Through Sunday receipts on Sunday morning.

I don't expect this to do well at the box office at all. It's such a niche, geek style of movie. I plan on going to see it if I can, but I don't expect anyone in the mainstream to do so. Especially not when it's up against The Expendables and Eat Pray Love.

They've modeled box office receipts to the point where they can be highly predictive based upon Friday numbers. But they are estimates that are sometimes off, but usually only by a few percent. They can go beyond that even and predict with a high degree of confidence the entire box office based upon the percentage drop after the first week.

Saw this last night, was Amazing.  One of the best/funniest movies I've seen in a very long time.

Just got back from an afternoon showing. Laughed the whole way through and loved catching all the NES references.

Totally recommend it.

Yeah, dittoing what everyone else said.  It got exiled to a tiny screen in the back of the theater, and it totally didn't deserve that.

Some might be pretty surprised at how accurate a lot of estimates for opening weekend are before the movie is even released, although those numbers aren't generally available to the public.

There's also some significant correlation I've heard of between number of tweets about a film (aimed at those under 30, of course) and its expected revenue.  (http://www.fastcompany.com/1604125/twitter-predicts-box-office-sales-better-than-anything-else) Makes sense - people go to films they talk about.

Never been a console gamer, but still enjoyed the heck out of this movie. Wife left to go shopping about 15 minutes in, though. Hehe.

This. Those early reports might be "amusing" to whoever's pet movie is taking it up the ass on any given weekend, but they're also almost always right to within a couple million at most.

There's still the international market.. which likes a lot of movies that have been turds in the US lately.  I wish I could remember what day NPR did the story, but it was about a month ago.  It's why you're seeing sequels or planned sequels for movies that bombed in the US.. they made more internationally than here.. which is apparently a growing trend.  The guy being interviewed inferred (at least to my ears) that the US might stop being the target market for movies if this trend continued.

I like that they actually filmed in Toronto. Awesome movie, very entertaining.

You say "each time" like it's a regular thing but this is the first "big budget" movie he's directed. Hot Fuzz was made for $16m and made $79m worldwide in box office and $33m in US DVD sales. Shaun of the Dead was made for $5m and made $30m worldwide in box office (and while I can't find an estimate of DVD sales figures, it made $500k in US sales during the week that Hot Fuzz was released three years after it was initially released for home).

I don't disagree that Pilgrim will probably find it difficult in the Box Office and make only half it's budget back worldwide but I also don't think that it's make-or-break for Wright's career.

This type of film probably has a little more leg. There's really nothing groundbreaking coming in the next month to steal the thunder, aside from maybe Machete on September 3rd.

What about gems such as Piranha 3d!  :oh_i_see:

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/43514.jpg)

What's wrong with Kelly Brook nekkid in 3D?

Saw SP tonight. God bless you, Edgar Wright. You are a saint amongst men.

I can probably find that on the internet for free instead of paying $10 to see it :p

But but 3D! :awesome_for_real:

What the hell is it with the August 25th release date in the UK? If I didn't want to support a film that looks awesome and I don't think is going to get huge mainstream success I would be tempted to pirate it just to give the studios the middle finger. They've shown that they can simultaneous releases, fuck this two weeks later bullshit. There's way too many films where a later release date means having to self-censor the internet to avoid spoilers.

Saw it today. Liked it a lot. Still hate Michael Cera, but the rest of the cast was pretty solid.

Brie Larson was almost a perfect Envy Adams.

Yeah, I thought Michael Cera was the weakest part of the movie.  But the movie was still amazing, so whatever.

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/43516.jpg)

Heh. "Directed by Hope Larsen." That's Brian Lee O'Malley's wife.  :awesome_for_real:

That movie is much better than it has any right to be. Fucking amazing.

I will likely see this movie tomorrow for exactly this reason...and it probably wouldn't have otherwise gotten a second glance from me.  Everything else out there is pure SHIT right now.

I think I would be seeing it again this weekend if it weren't for the fact that the local art house has the following, which we are seeing:

Girl Who Played With Fire
Exit Through The Gift Shop

I don't know why I am quoting myself, other than to remark at what a horrible mistake I made.  I imagine there is a certain type of person who will like a movie like this, but holy shit it sure isn't me.  Fucking horrible.  Except for that Ramona chick, who for some reason I found unreasonably hot.

And for whatever reason I can't figure out, I keep replaying some of the scenes in my head, as if I enjoyed any part of them.  Which I didn't.  I think.

Drops to #10 at the box office with a >50% decline in it's second weekend. That isn't a horrible percentage in and of itself (Expendables had a similar dropoff and remains #1) but it's decisive for a movie that didn't have that large of an initial take in the first place.

My diagnosis is that you're broken.

He's not alone. Watching the trailer only makes me think "what is this stupid shit?" and leave me with no desire to actually watch the movie.

This. Though I think part of the reason is that I am not an American (neither are you I think!), so it's very possible that we just don't "get" the references. :p

I am Canadian (live in Toronto in fact), and other then a few bits of name dropping (mostly for places / locations), I don't think there was anything in it that would even make it remotely Inaccessable to a non canadian viewer.   It was cool on a personal level to hear them go "and here is X band, from Brampton", or see Casa Loma used as a set piece, but that is no different then watching any generic american movie where someone mentions the Bronx or Harlem or the Jersey Shore or uses any american landmark as a set piece.

Yeah, this movie was seriously one of the best movies I've seen in a very very long time.  I could see somebody who is several generations older than ours not getting it due to many of the references.  But other than that, the movie is amazing.  I mean, as in, should at least be nominated for best picture good.  I have a very hard time seeing how anybody could watch that movie and not enjoy it.  I was laughing the ENTIRE way from start to finish.  Very few movies can do that.

It took me a bit to get into the aesthetic of the thing (some stuff seemed overly cutsie and I react badly to that and combined with Michael Sera gave me Juno flashbacks and I hate  that movie like no other), but once I got into the groove I enjoyed it quite a bit (Routh was the highpoint for me). Some older people in the theater walked out halfway through. I can see this movie being completely incomprehensible to that generation. It always fascinates me when people go to movies without the slightest clue as to what it is.

As for my comment above, I'm amazed Hot Fuzz was made for only 16M so good on Edgar, although when you work everything out even that film was barely profitable. I just really want to see him bust out as I think the guy is a genius.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the big deal is.

I don't mean landmarks, I mean the cultural references and such. There are several Hungarian comedy movies / cartoons that are IMO hilarious / awesome and pretty much everyone from my generation can recite the most awesome scenes from memory, but I doubt they'd be appreciated by non-Hungarians. I think the same thing is happening here (for me at least).

cant really recall any Canada specific cultural references in there that would have gone over other people's heads (other then the nonchalance about his gay roommate).  90% of the cultural references would be more about the generation of video gamers it was constantly referenceing then anything else.   You could have set it in any major city in the US or Canada and I doubt anyone would have noticed a difference.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who's found this website has trouble recognizing bog-standard video game tropes that make up most of the "cultural references" in this movie.  Having a broken funny bone is one thing, but being utterly confused when a defeated enemy turns into a pile of coins is something else entirely.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have been playing video games for the better part of the last 30 years, so I understood all the important references.  I just thought it was a fairly idiotic concept to model a film on.

I don't think my funny bone is broken, though, I just think I'm not the right kind of person for this movie.  There certainly are people who will like it.

I never owned a console in my life and started my gaming carreer with gold box RPGs on my C-64. This probably makes me broken.  :awesome_for_real:

Anyway, you're probably right -- it's just that I didn't find the trailer funny, and since almost everyone was, I figured the problem was me not "getting it". I was getting a (unfair comparison alert!) Jim Carrey vibe from it all coupled with random fourth-wall breakage (which is an ok gimmick, but eh), and Carrey makes me want to stab things. Maybe my funny bone IS broken, though I did like Zombieland.

edit: tangent, but I originally kinda drew a parallel with this hungarian cartoon / movie thing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179955/)... I imagine it's 'ok, eh whatever' for most non-hungarians, but here it's universally acclaimed as the best cartoon (or even film!) ever made for the 80s generation.

See, I didn't own an NES growing up, but I still get at least the basic references because all my friends had them.  And many of the basic concepts (coins, stats, pee bars) transcend platform.  Not getting how it's clever and funny to translate those things into other mediums in this way is one thing, but not getting the references at all?

I think having played and appreciated River City Ransom was a requirement to getting the most out of this.

Saw this on Saturday and thought it was amazing. The Michael Ceraness of Michael Cera actually works for him and he's a good fit. I loved the casting of the Ex's, particularily Routh and Evans.  I appreciated the Canadian touches (Second Cup instead of Starbucks, all the coins being Canadian currency).

Awesome movie.

Ok, anyone posting that this movie is 'amazing', can you please clarify? Because from the trailer, I'm not getting the 'amazing' at all. It looks like a derivative Gen Y flick trying to be Napoleon Dynamite with high production value. Or worse.

Is there an interesting story arc? Is there deeper character development than the tralier leads one to think? Is the sampling of funny quips in the trailer not doing justice to the comedic genius of the full movie's antics?

Or am I just not part of the NES generation so I'm just not gonna get it? I was part of the Commodore 64/ZX-Spectrum generation, and there's nothing to celebrate about it. Glad it happened, glad we've moved past it. 40 minutes to load a game off a tape recorder SUCKS A BAG OF DICKS.

Everybody stop trying to judge the damn movie by the trailer.  I wasn't particularly fond of the trailer either, and only actually saw this in theaters because I was dragged by other people.

Watch it then criticize.  I thought Hot Fuzz looked generic and retarded when I watched the trailer for it as well.

All the "NES" jokes in this movie are general nerd jokes that anybody who uses tech or even the damn internet will get.  It seemed pretty universal to me.  The only generational gap I can see would be for old people who have never logged onto the internet before.

But thats beside the point because a huge amount of jokes and gags in this movie weren't directly video game related.  Hell, I think they're are more gay jokes in the movie than nerd jokes.  If you didn't laugh your ass off at the Vegan Police scene, you are in fact broken.

I was hesitant about the vegan police until the very end of it in the slow-mo part in which i busted my gut laughing. that had nothing to do with nerd humor either, just good ole action movie trope.

It's a coming of age story with a generally unlikable protagonist steeped in geek/NES culture. Personally I thought the script was solid; most movies that try to have an unlikable lead fail. His redemption at the end was well executed. The fights were fun and his roommate was fantastic. The editing was just ass sharp as Hot Fuzz which is a high compliment in my book.

thank you

If you don't think a guy peeing and having his "pee bar" drain is funny, you will not like this movie.  If you don't think it's funny that a guy that has super powers because he is a vegan, and subsequently gets confronted by the Vegan Police due to accidentally drinking dairy product in a cup of coffee, who then drain him of his vegan powers and then gets exploded into a shower of coins via headbutt, then this isn't the movie for you.  And so on.

The movie itself is well constructed, well acted and even has a certain visual appeal.  I just found it to be fucking stupid as all hell.  It will all boil down to whether or not you find that sort of thing funny or not.

I knew what to expect based on one of the trailers (some are better than others) and was not disappointed.

Sounds hilarious.  How'd you get that giant stick wedged up your ass?

The Pee Bar joke was one of the weaker ones and it was just used to fill the space in the transition that occured during that scene. This movie is a love letter to the NES generation, but not only for them. I went with a friend who knows absolutely nothing about videogames, and is clueless when it comes to the internet, but she laughed all through it and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's silly and visually over the top, but it's highly entertaining.

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I was describing some stuff straight from the movie.  Some people will find this sort of thing legitimately funny.  Some won't.  Nothing to get all frothy about.  I mean, I did admit to finding that Ramona chick quite hawt, so there is that.

He wasn't implying that you are an ass, he's implying that you have a stick wedged up your rectum that prevents you from finding any of those things funny, and he's inquiring how it got there.  I think it's a very reasonable line of questioning.

Fair enough, then.  I really wanted to like it, honest.

Ok. All I can say is this. From your questions here I don't think you'll like the movie. If you go in for story arcs and character development you're in the wrong theater. You should go to this movie to see a video game/comic book brought to life and to laugh at things like Kieran Culkins hilarious gay room mate.

Yeah, I busted out laughing just reading your description of the vegan police scene.  Actually seeing it in action may leave me suffocating.  That's goddamn brilliant.  I will, however, grant you that a pee bar is dumb. 

Anyways, since I saw Hot Fuzz 6 times in theaters, I greatly look forward to seeing this, despite the concerns of raging-cera-hipster-annoyance.

Dick, piss, shit and gay jokes are the low hanging fruit that always seem to get get tossed in a comedy movie.  What separates the good ones from the rest is if the toss-ins are just filler material during a slowdown to let you process other jokes rather than the bulk of the material.   One gives you Young Frankenstein, the other gives you "Disaster Movie" or anything by the Wayans brothers.

Saw it tonight.  Was surprised to see a pretty decent crowd for a Monday night showing.

It was a lot of fun.  Laughed a lot and enjoyed the ride.  Can't complain.

The movie made fun of vegans, gay people, club kids, Canadians, nerds, skaters, bassists, asians, and probably some people I'm forgetting.  The fact that it managed to do so without being mean-spirited about it impressed me greatly.  Plus yeah, the whole thing was an homage to video games, so that helps.

I thought it was fairly funny, but I knew what it was going in, having read the comics. My major issue was kind of the same thing Seth Schiesel complained about in the NY Times today--that there's a really great emotional-development arc waiting to happen that would make this more than just some funny schticks messing around with video game tropes and it doesn't quite come off. Michael Cera is part of the problem--he just underplays Scott Pilgrim as yet another Cera schlub, but what's really needed is for the story to progressively reveal that Scott's a pretty decent and talented guy underneath the schlubbiness that he starts off with--that there's that kind of "levelling up" going on as he works through the Evil Exes. The comic does this better than the film. Plus there's the issue that Ramona is set up as Scott's attractive object of desire just because she has cool hair: she's not even given a scene that sets her up as cool or remarkable in any fashion (again the comic does this better). If there was more character and less schtick to Scott and Ramona, the film would be seriously awesome. As it is, it's very amusing, a lot of fun, but ultimately forgettable.

I disagree.  Every movie that does that feels like it does a 180 in pacing and makes it feel like a completely different movie than the first half.  I like how Scott Pilgrim was because it was consistent throughout, even through the more "serious" scenes.

Scott Pilgrim vs The Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RsZErYEXz8)

That's awesome.

Scott Pilgrim was many things, but I don't think anyone could say it was forgettable. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much arguing abou whether a pee bar is funny.

That said, I totally agree with all the remarks about characterization, or lack thereof. I don't agree that the "levelling up" was portrayed better in the comic, though. I hardly even noticed until I saw it on the screen.

Was he really played as another Cera Schlub? I never saw him as such a dick in his other movies.

Yeah, your typical "Cera schlub" is usually more of a "sensitive good guy".  Scott's got the same sort of spacey-dorky attitude as most Cera roles, but he's a lot more self-involved and callous.

Saw this over the weekend during a rare double feature with Inception on the tail end.

Absolutely fucking brilliant from start to finish. I went in knowing I'd like it and was in no way disappointed. I knew nothing about the comic. This movie is a zeitgeist movie for the NES generation, perfectly encapsulating everything about them in one bite-sized chunk. Quick cut film editing, razor sharp wit, the visual style of an 80's TV show mixed with anime (come on, the changing hair colors alone should clue anyone in that this is a manga given form), the heavy reliance on music all throughout, the compressed time transitions. Utterly brilliant. So many good jokes, good action, great art design, good acting. I don't see Scott as Cera's typical character at all. In fact, he's a bit of a shallow dickbag in the beginning - he's dating a highschooler that he clearly doesn't really even give much of a shit about, who is really only there to bolster his ego. As soon as he sees Ramona, he cheats on Knives and dumps her for the hotter, older chick. That is so not Cera's typical guy and he plays it well.

I love the fact that they never called attention to the weirdness surrounding the world (villains turning into coins, pee bars, sound effects, kung-fu fighting) with some kind of wink wink nudge nudge mugging, the characters just accepted it as natural. That's a hard act to pull off in something so over the top.

I can understand why some people wouldn't like the movie, as it's really a strange hodge podge of so much stuff, but really, if you were under the age of 30 when the NES is big, you should get screaming fits of laughter all through this movie. If you do not, you are a horribly broken person.

It seems to me the pee bar was just something that didn't translate well to the screen. In the book it was brilliant; not just the idea of it, but the way it was drawn and framed. I get the feeling Wright and/or Bacall went "That pee bar's awesome, how can we fit that in there?"

(http://scottpilgrim.neoseeker.com/w/i/scottpilgrim/thumb/1/13/Pee_Bar.jpg/200px-Pee_Bar.jpg)

....thats almost exactly like it was in the movie...

And yet it seems more effective as drawings.

This.

One of my favourite bits (being a Canadian), was the scene where Ramona comments about using the Sub Space Highway that runs through Scott's head, finishin off with "Oh, I forgot: you dont have those in Canada".  Typical American / Canadian interaction you get all the time, just adjusted into the "wierd zone" that his world exists in.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4739-scott-pilgrim/

Pretty depressing, yet right on target sadly.

When did WUA start writing for Cracked?

Geeks don't matter, film at eleven.

I dare you to tell that to Anon.

Hollywood really needs to learn that a few thousand excited geeks may be able to fag up the entire internet with how excited they are about a given movie, but that doesn't mean anyone else gives a shit. They never seem to realize what a loud buzz can be made by sufficiently motivated people online, who are nevertheless too few to matter when the tickets are counted.


What a fucking pointless thing to say. So have two dozen grubby nerds playing Rick Astley on a boombox in Guy Fawkes masks destroyed Scientology yet?

Lighten up. There's no more green here. It was a comment on exactly what you just said.

Why the hell aren't we doing green anymore?

The titles for episode's one, two and three should have been in green.

We don't use green because IGN used it or some shit.


This. Hollywood, however, uses buzz as a form of currency. It doesn't use it WISELY, mind you, as they all too often misinterpret buzz as a one to one ratio to dollars spent, and frankly, it's much more unpredictable than that. When you are talking mass market, at the theater dollars, pre-release buzz really is worth jack and shit. First weekend buzz is golden, however.

I firmly believe Scott Pilgrim will break even based purely on DVD and international numbers, but it will never be a hit.

They said the same about Austin Powers as well. In fact, no, they weren't even as generous. Scott Pilgrim will easily break even with DVD sales - I will go on record here and predict that it will make more than $30 million. Behind the scenes, it won't be a loss maker for the studio because of all the TV syndication and in-flight licensing deals that they can get out of it (which never get included in sales figures but count for a lot of the profit behind the scenes.) The only reason Box Office numbers are ever touted by the studio is as a way of saying "look, this film made no money. Therefore we can't afford to pay any fucker who worked in it their miniscule share of the profits that we agreed in the contract because there was no profit made. Honest, guv!" Case in point - New Line and the LOTR trilogy. Made a fuck load of money, but New Line went "hey! That was a really expensive film to make - like really, really expensive and despite it making all the money in the world, we haven't broken even yet so, um, afraid we can't pay you."

Mafia accountants have nothing on the film industry number wranglers.

The fact that a project will eventually generate some sort of profit doesn't really matter anywhere near as much as fans of the current flop du jour always seem to think it does. It's all about expected return on investment versus reality. Sure this movie will eventually turn a relatively small profit. But if the studio wanted a small profit, they could have made a much smaller/faster/cheaper movie that actually lived up to it's limited expectations.

More to the point, they could have made three of them.

There's a ratio of expenditure to income that they're looking for, and it's not everything they spent plus one dollar two years from now. It's like the people on any MMO forum going "Sure the producers of My Favorite IP Online talked a bunch of shit about competing with WoW, but even with their disastrous sub-EQ1 subscription numbers I'll bet they're turning a profit!" Yeah, the profit of a third-rate generic Korean grinder that was made in one-fifth the time.

They won't go out of business, but don't expect anyone to look at things and go "Yeah we need to get right on the sequel to this, and make more things in this vein!"

As a contrast, "The Last Airbender" has at least made a profit on its production costs (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lastairbender.htm), but maybe not marketing costs.

"Scott Pilgrim" is still nowhere near any kind of profit.

1. Scott Pilgrim has made approximately $30 million, with a budget between $60-80 million and (widely reported) another $30+ million in promotional costs.  In other words, Scott Pilgrim isn't going to earn back the cost of advertising the thing let alone making it.

Austin Powers, on the other hand, was always a profitable franchise if you just look at production costs.  It may not have lived up to expectations, but all three movies did considerably better than their production budget.

2. DVD sales are declining.  Google "DVD sales trends" or something similar.  Between Netflix, On Demand, or piracy people just aren't shelling out for a $20 DVD.

3. Even if somehow Scott Pilgrim becomes a massive cult success in later years, what you aren't looking at is the cash flow situation and the cost of financing/opportunity cost of the money tied up with Pilgrim.  Say it takes 5 years to break even....  that means the studio is financing that cash deficit either through borrowings (interest) or equity...  with comparable hits either in interest/financing difficulties not just to interest expense but also to how this is tieing up tens of millions of dollars that aren't being productive.  If it's being financed through equity, it's directly hitting your financial rations (ROE/ROI) which is going to hit your stock price.

4. Box office numbers are the best way to gauge interest among potential viewers for things like licensing and premium channel agreements.  This movie is going to be rushed to DVD and get the 2 week spin on a premium channel before getting relegated to weekdays at 2 AM, and end up on Syfy in 2 years.

5. Accounting issues.  Film industry accounting (which has it's own separate area of GAAP, like healthcare accounting and oil industry accounting) is bizarre when determining profitability mostly because the rules are really lax as to how you can assign operating overhead and fixed costs to project costs, which really doesn't match up to regular cost accounting or Construction/Contracting job accounting.

Basically, the rules let the studio assign large amounts of overhead costs/costs of failed films to their successful films for accounting for the project....  with multi-year projects like LOTR, the rules are really lax about how fast you can write off/assign the development costs for films as well, whereas regular accounting there are reams of rules as to how quickly you can amortize your costs for long-term projects.

At least that's what I vaguely remember from a quick perusal of film accounting.

We better hope they don't, since this is apparently the only way good movies can get made in Hollywood now.  

We can keep tricking them into making good movies for a loss, while surviving on the big profits from all the horrible movies.  I don't see a problem with this situation.   :why_so_serious:

What has influence over subsequent films (and other popular culture) does not equal what made or exceeded its expected profit. It doesn't NOT equal it either: the question of the impact of a given film or work of popular culture is kind of perpendicular to what made or exceeded expected profit. That's what makes analyzing the past economics of culture industries so complicated and confusing, and makes predicting what their future output (and economic expectations) might be cloaked in such mystery. It's not even that the studios deliberately try to make their balance sheets so murky so that they can assfuck someone out of a percentage they took in their contract--it's that people in the culture industry are constantly telling stories designed to make themselves look like gifted trend-spotters and everyone else look like a dumbfuck hack who got taken for a ride, and the net effect of ten thousand stories of this kind (crapped up by a lot of noise from observers, critics, geeks, etc on the Internetz) is to permanently shroud claims about whether a film, game, TV show or anything else was "successful" under a misty haze.

There are plenty of films that appear to have made fucking huge box office that bafflingly don't seem to inspire much in the way of imitation. There are films that appear to have nearly ruined the companies that bankrolled them which end up having a huge aesthetic influence on later films, or turn into cult successes years and years later. There are films prized by weird nerdy subcultures which suddenly leap into mainstream culture a decade later, and films which were boffo box office and degenerate into strange footnotes remembered only by oddball enthusiasts.

You have to separate the question of "did this make money, and the kind of money it was supposed to have made" from "did this film have a big impact or influence later films".

Some excellent movies end up being box office flops; some truly awful movies end up making a ton of money.  This is not news.  I could list quite a few movies that are among people's favorites that never made their money back when they were originally released.  See: Blade Runner.

Well yes, and for years it has benefitted studios to have perennial classics they could re-release every few years in different formats... and pick up residuals from television broadcasts ad infinitum. That's still not something you can plan for, it's just something that happens. And there's a lot of middle ground of movies that are cult favorites, or well known for their influence in modern film, that still remain publically unpopular and never make back their money.

If they have a big budget, that's just bad mojo.

It's been out in the UK for a little over 2 weeks now, and I've been to see it three times. I've actually only seen it twice, as the first time I went to see it, on release day, it was sold out on all showings; not something I'd expected at all.
A week later on my second try, I got the ticket early and even then the cinema was packed. Sadly I came down with the mother of all stinking colds while watching it and that severely hampered my enjoyment of the movie to the point where I left at the end believing I'd seen something great but completely unable to feel anything about it. Waited another week for the cold to settle down and I saw it again last night, and properly experienced it. Oh yeah, and the cinema was packed, again. I think its worldwide box-office will be a lot more generous than the American one, this is not a movie that's going to be a loss by any standards, even if it has to rely on DVD sales. If they've spent $30 million marketting it in the US, that's hardly the makers fault. It's barely had a whisper of advertising in the UK, but I think Wright's name attached to the film has a far bigger sway over here than practically anything else.

Anyway, after a second, less head-fucked viewing, picked up on a few more jokes and visuals (stars in Knives' eyes as she watches Sex Bob-omb etc), cemented my impression that Wallace and Kim are the best characters. Reading the books at the moment - been aware of them for some time but the moment I knew Edgar Wright was making a movie of them I wanted to steer clear, didn't want to judge the movie on terms of adherance to the books; I am a fan of Edgar Wright first. Books are great, nice seeing some characters expanded and differing plot lines but I really appreciate the conciseness of the movie in comparison.

Kick Ass was a somewhat more successful (and much less expensive) movie than Scott Pilgrim is turning out to be, but it's the closest and most recent analogue I can think of for comparison purposes. Let's see what it can tell us.

Let's say that the foreign gross comes out roughly equal to the domestic gross, as happened with Kick Ass (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kickass.htm). In that case the movie will have more or less broken even with the most lowball estimates of it's production budget (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=scottpilgrim.htm) sans marketing and distribution costs. Once you add those costs back in and allow for the possibility of the highball budget estimates, it'll finish anywhere from 30 to 50 million dollars in the red.

Let's say the DVD costs 30 bucks and wholesales for 20. The studio profit margin was about 50 or 60 percent on a DVD last time I heard (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t272357-dvd-profit-margins.html), so they'll be making 10 or 12 bucks per sale. That means they would need to sell anywhere from 2.5 to 5 million copies just to finish paying off the costs of the theatrical run.

Kick Ass came out on DVD about a month ago and is reputedly doing well. By doing well I mean it's sold about 800k copies (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2010/KCKAS-DVD.php) in North America to date, mostly in the first couple weeks. Between 8/22 and 8/29 it only sold a little under 60k copies, for example. I can't find any figures on overseas DVD sales, but let's just assume that they follow the same pattern as the box office and are equal to domestic sales. Even if Scott Pilgrim sells just as well as the somewhat more robust Kick Ass, those first several million profitless sales are a huge bite. By the time the studio gets to start keeping any money, it's likely there will be only a trickle to be had.

Now, these are all very back-of-the-napkin numbers I'm running. I wouldn't swear by them. The box office gross could vary, DVD profit margins could have changed in the last few years, the disc could cost something different, it could sell better or worse than I'm projecting, TV rights will throw a few bucks in there somewhere, etcetera. But I believe I've painted a much more realistic picture of what's going on here than the usual "Uh foreign and DVD will save the day somehow..." muttering you get from fanboys whenever one of these nerd-chic pictures flops on it's ass.

It's okay to love a flop, guys. Really. I've gotten to really like David Lynch's Dune, and that was a giant flop that never even turned into a hip cult thing. It'll be all right. I don't like being the designated sourpuss of box office doom (I love it) but there it is.

There's a famous William Goldman quote that comes to mind that applies to most of this: "Nobody knows nothing." He said it in relation to how do to determine whether or not a movie is going to be successful.

Is Scott Pilgrim going to be a runaway hit in the movies? It's probably a safe bet to say no. Is it going to make it's money back in the box office on this premiere release? Certainly not in the US and worldwide has got a big deficit to make up. That being said, it's still got a lot of territories to be released into - it doesn't even reach Germany until January next year and while the German cinemagoers may not like it, they're still potentially worth $5-6m worth of revenue. Or maybe it'll only be $600k - who knows?  Will it be a hit on DVD? Same answer - who knows? It could only take $10m but it might do a Hot Fuzz and take $33m in the US alone. (I still stand by my prediction of SP doing well on DVD and that's based on nothing but being an antsy bastard.)

But the figures that we're talking about are on the verge of being made up too. Is the movie budget $60m as per BoxOfficeMojo or $85m going on The Numbers' numbers? Is that pure above/below the line costs or does it also include marketing/distribution - and no, you don't know what it includes because the budget details are never fully released and it's idle speculation on everybodys part. So add it on if you want to up the numbers or don't if you don't. (FWIW, most budget sheets I've seen - albeit at a far lesser level - do include post-production costs like transfers, marketing, dvd production, festival entries etc. Also, from what I gather a lot of the marketing budget for studio-produced films was written off at a company level across the whole slate of a years releases rather than against a single release which is why numbers for marketing are so vague).

Even the revenue figures for BoxOfficeMojo aren't accurate at this stage because they don't include the US$2.75m that SP's 4 week run in Australia has netted so far (http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/australian-box-office-results.htm).

So: at the risk of further being called a nerd-chic fanboy (although I still haven't been to see SP and at this point, am thinking about waiting 6 months until I can rent it) I'm going to put my stake in the ground. I wager that by a year after it's release, Scott Pilgrim will have broken even and that the Box Office sales and DVD revenue as shown on BoxOfficeMojo will be greater than or equal to $60m - as the production budget currently stands on the same site.)  If the published production budget figure has escalated to $85m or greater on BOM then I will concede that it is an unmitigated flop if the deficit is greater than $15m.

Yeah, I'm drunk. Wanna make something of it?

I'm tired of explaining shit just to have some twat go "Buh-buh-but nobody knows anything for sure, they do all sorts of crazy shit with the numbers!" You want something a lot shorter? This movie is beaten in both opening weekend and total gross by such recent luminaries as Step Up 3-D and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore. It didn't open quite as well as Marmaduke (fucking lol) but will probably scrape ahead of it in total gross within the next couple weeks.

It's a flop. Suck my dick.

Speed Racer should have done far better than it did, by the Movie Formula. It had name actors, zippy special effects, loud music and a plain and simple story. I don't know about the merchandising and whatnot, but according to Wiki, it didn't even make it's money back.

Much as they'd like to think, there is no magic formula for making anything popular or sucessful, or everyone would be doing it.  :grin:

People don't seem to be taking into account that the studio only sees a percentage of the box office gross which shows how far in the hole it currently is.  With a 60M budget, it would likely need a worldwide gross of around 100M, plus dvd/tv sales to make any money.

Yes, it flopped. As I said, anyone who didn't think this would tank at the box office is deluding themselves. It's so niche it hurts.

Still an awesome fucking movie, and objectively better than Revenge of the Sith.  :why_so_serious:

I bet it would have made a lot more money if it'd had some mechs fighting dragons or something.

I had Speed Racer pegged as a giant turd-in-waiting from the first trailer. It amazes me someone greenlit that, and that the public/media reaction was anything besides "FLOP AHOY!" from the get-go. It's the same sort of bafflement I'm filled with whenever someone puts Kevin Costner in a movie.

It's a fucking great movie. Box-office is completely irrelevant whichever way you swing it. So it's not going to make its money back in a month, is that really a massive concern? It's hardly going to cause the career death of anyone involved from actors to producers to Edgar Wright. It'll happily shuffle along on word of mouth for ages. It was made, it is good, and it's still incredibly zeitgeisty (the worst thing about the movie is the pale imitations it's going to spawn), that's an end to it. Can't make people go to the movies (unless your name is James Cameron). You can hope they'll pick up on a good thing eventually, though.

Zeitgeisty word-of-mouth sleepers may not open big, but they tend to hang around for a while. This movie plummeted out of the top ten with speed and is rapidly shedding the vast majority of its viewing sites as theater owners move to fill their screens with other things. There is nothing in particular that marks its prospects as superior to those of a dozen other movies that no one will remember in six months.

I don't like being so negative (I love it) but if you don't care about its financial performance then quit talking about it.

I'd mention how stuff like Dark Crystal and Labyrinth became classics that still sell DVDs and make money for their publishers, but nowadays there's such a glut of movies, that I doubt much of anything will be like that again.

Fight Club.

This reminds me of a situation today where I read an article speaking about the popularity of Female Shepard from Mass Effect only to have the numbers come out and show that 80% of people who play Mass Effect play Male Shepard. (Article is here (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30143/Analysis_On_FemSheps_Popularity_In_Mass_Effect.php).)

Yeah, I saw some of the statistics that article alludes to... the numbers are bizarre. I can't stand the guy doing Male Sheppard's voice. He's practically speaking in binary, so utterly devoid of life, emotion or nuance. I compared him to the lovechild of Stephen Hawking and a Speak'n'Spell recently and now I feel bad for marring the parents by association. No wonder the majority of players seem to just play him as a total Jar-head. Soldier being more popular than every other class combined is really worrying for the prospects of future game variety if Bioware's shareholders get wind of how much development time was wasted on the rest.

But yeah, I see where you're coming from. There was this huge enthusiasm for Scott Pilgrim, right up until release, and then inexplicable silence, despite rave reviews. Voices and numbers not adding up.

I also played Engineer and found it to be vastly superior to Soldier in avenging the fallen.

We're in a minority, and it's ok, because there isn't anything remotely like Scott Pilgrim on the horizon. This was our Serenity, we got it, and hopefully we can all move on now.

I've read somewhere that Hawking was asked whether he wanted to upgrade his little text-to-speech device to something that was made in the last 15 years, and refused on the grounds that it's more or less integral to his identity now.

Those stats may be misleading: you'd need a stat that showed how many / proportion of players played male only, female only and how many played a character of both genders. There would be some overlap.

Sure, but I think even taking that into account, a clear and massive majority of players picked the godawful Male Shepard.

Soldier outweighing all other classes combined was probably more damaging to the game as previously mentioned.

Where were we? Oh yeah. Scott Pilgrim is a oneshot for the fans and there won't be anything like it for a long while and I think low box office is the least important factor compared to lack of interesting video game culture based IPs / stories.

Luckily, Scott Pilgrim doesn't want or need a sequel.  The movie managed to cover the entire story pretty well, and a sequel would only diminish the brilliance of the first movie.  And I'm pretty sure Edgar Wright is going to keep making awesome stuff no matter what.

This movie wasn't that good. It wasn't that bad either but its amazing you guys managed to care enough to talk for six pages about if it was good or not. It was a fairly average movie that had funny parts and lots of who cares bits.

Certainly it wasn't something worth seeing in a movie theater for ten bucks.

And yet you posted!

I only watched it because I figured if it had generated this much response there had to be a chance that I would really like it. I liked it but how anyone could have strong feelings one way or the other baffles me. Some I'm posting to complain that such a big deal was made, what of it?

You are a horribly broken person.  :awesome_for_real:

And you're excalating things further, Hoax. That's why we have a 6-page thread! PEOPLE LIKE YOU! YOUUUU!

The director should have just stuck to tried and true movie themes like in Dancing with Wolves.  That's what all the popular movies do!

Think how awesome Dances With Wolves would have been if the Confederates had had mechs.  With giant knives instead of guns!

Could you improve that with giant tree hugging smurfs?  I think you could!

On topic.. I just saw this.  I wasn't really blown away, but I just suspect it was built up a little too much.  Still, it was quite enjoyable and worth seeing.  First movie I've seen in a theater in 15 months and I was all alone (one showing in all of Tucson).  

Truth be told, almost all discussions I run into are whether or not the movie is important, and to whom.

Read the comic book. Hated it.

Watched the movie. Still bad.

Michael Cera is just unbelievably godawful.

You're crazy.  This movie only gets more awesome each time I see it. 

Michael Cera is probably the weakest actor in it, though.  It's really all about the supporting cast.

Schwartzman sucked in it and I was most looking forward to his stuff.

Cera is so bad in it (and everything) that he makes the rest just completely unenjoyable.

Brandon Routh was the high point.

BRANDON ROUTH WAS THE HIGH POINT.

BRANDON ROUTH WAS THE HIGH POINT.

BRANDON ROUTH WAS THE HIGH POINT.

That means the movie is shit.

 :awesome_for_real:

It's not for you?

Final box office stats.

Production budget: $60m if you believe Mojo, $85m if you believe Numbers
Total worldwide gross: $47.5m according to everyone
Home video projection from Box Office Spy: "With what it took in this past week, it could very well earn anywhere from $14-$19 million from hard-copy sales in the first six months of release, but that will be contingent on just how front-loaded it turns out to be."

If you believe Mojo, which is the lowest estimate around and certainly doesn't include marketing costs, then this movie might eventually begin turning a small profit somewhere around the middle of 2011. However, it's more likely that the production of this film was functionally equivalent to taking several million dollars cash and setting it on fire.

If you want to tell me you enjoyed the movie, then good for you. I've never seen it and have never attempted to argue it's merits or lack therof. But next time I call a flop, don't any of you chucklefucks try to argue with me.

I figured it'd flop about halfway through reading Vol 1.  :awesome_for_real:

Half-watched it this weekend.  Movie for dorks and nerds who play video games, didn't disappoint as I didn't have high expectations or know anything about it except for what I'd read on threads like this.  I thought it was amusing, but I had to explain to the geeks I watched it with that, no, it was NOT a box office hit despite them thinking that it was the best movie in years when they wouldn't shut the fuck up about it.

You dick. Even I only do that on the internet.  :why_so_serious:

It was my ex's new boyfriend who I dislike.  He deserved it ;-)

I think anyone who saw the trailer could tell it was going to do shit at the box office, mostly because people wouldn't "get it." I would have expected it to break even at best. Still doesn't change the awesomeness of it, mostly because it's not my money going up in flames.

Watched it.  Enjoyed it.  Like a live action anime.  Lead actress sucked, Cera was pretty good with his one-note acting.  How can the guy be an 'awkward youth' even when in combat?  I liked how it was in Toronto, not a lot of mainstream films about our overly polite neighbors to the north.

Just watched the movie and my main take away was, how did they find such an ugly asian actress in Toronto?  That seriously takes skill, congratulations on scraping the bottom of the casting barrel.

Ok, hiring:  (http://imgur.com/suX1X.jpg) makes up for part of the fail. 

Some great lines though...:

"What's that from?"
"My brain!"

"Kick her in the balls!"

"I gotta pee on her."

Brandon Routh, ve-gon, fucking awesome, lol... punched the highlights out of her hair...  :woot:    Just awesome, lol.  Fun?  In Toronto?!  Chicken isn't vegan?   :grin:

Overall, not a bad movie and I even liked the music.

I was shocked by how much I liked the music in this movie.  I'm pretty sure that in an objective sense it's crap, but there's something I really dig about that rough garage band sound.

You have Beck to thank for that.  :awesome_for_real:

If you're talking about Ellen Wong then your definition of ugly confuses me.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/wong.jpg)

Yeah, I've been thinking I need to pick up a CD and see if I like the rest of his work.


That Ellen Wong looks waaaay better with long hair.  Damn.

Yeah, I think they had her look the way she did as a style choice, and I liked it.  She looked normal, like what an average nerdy asian High School girl running around Toronto (no matter what Oban says) would look like.  I think it would have thrown things off if they had him dating some Asian super model.

The soundtrack is by Beck? Damn, another Scientology stooge that tricked me into giving him money.

So it's ok for him to date... never mind.


(http://i.imgur.com/NHm19.jpg)

Other chick wasn't suppose to be a desperate high school nerd.

Woah. That's Knives Chou? Dayamn.

The movie rendered everyone in the same realistic, grungy, high school style fitting the manga. Dawson's Creek and other "everyone is BEAUTIFUL" it ain't.

 :headscratch:  You've never heard Beck before?  The song "Loser"  "Where It's At" or "Devil's Haircut"?  Never seen the episode of Futurama that had him in it?  Am I just watching the joke fly over my head? 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHomely

Ah, I have heard at least a couple of those, but didn't bother to know who did them because I don't think they're that great.  That saves me some trouble, then.  Thanks!

Those songs are all from his first two albums in the mid-90s. His later stuff is more mature. I think Guero is a good album. Just listen to his Pandora station or something.

Edit for typo.

Greed Corp looks pretty rad. I think that's definitely one to pick up today.

 :facepalm:

I watched Pilgrim not really knowing what I was getting. I enjoyed it.  Still, there was no way this movie was going to make money with a $60MM budget.  It is too esoteric.

The Metric song was still the best thing on the soundtrack though.

Agreed.

Funny.. when I heard them before Muse I decided they sucked. Maybe they just do a terrible live show.

No, they do pretty decent live shows. They just shouldn't open for Muse. Their core sound is way too different.

No, it wasn't ok.

Ellen Wong is still hot though.