Why Scott Pilgrim Is The Movie Comic Book Movies Should Model Themselves After

  • 57 Comments
 
Why <i>Scott Pilgrim</i> Is The Movie Comic Book Movies Should Model Themselves After  

I’ll admit it; I love Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. I loved it so much the first time I saw it, in fact, that it took a second viewing to confirm to myself that I really wasn’t misremembering how good it was, how much I’d enjoyed it, and how well it worked as a film.

I’d had this thing in my head, before I saw it, that could pretty much have been reduced to a constant refrain of “Please don’t screw it up, please don’t screw it up” over and over again. Don’t get me wrong, I love Edgar Wright’s previous work – Yes, even the Charlotte Hathaway videos – but there was something worrying about Michael Cera being named as the lead, something about the books themselves that seemed so suited to the comic medium that it was as if I’d started to talk my expectations down so as to avoid crushing, depressing disappointment when I saw the finished product. And then… it was better than I’d expected, and I was left – before that second viewing – thinking that clearly, I must’ve been blown over by the lack of failure that I was overenthusing about the whole thing. But, no: It really is as good as I thought the first time.

(It’s not perfect, don’t get me wrong: The opening, before Sex Bob-Omb launch into “We Are Sex Bob-Omb” is worryingly literal, and oddly nervous, for one thing, and I’ll admit to missing the depth of the original version of Envy Adams in the movie. The books, overall, in fact, have an emotional depth that the movie lacks, but I think that’s a fact of the respective lengths more than anything.)

There’s something about it, the more I think about it, that makes me hope that it changes the way comic book movies are made in future, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. The key, I think, is that it’s a movie that somehow manages to exactly capture what makes Bryan Lee O’Malley’s comics work, and yet it never feels like anything less than a celebration of filmmaking, and an example of the potential of the movie medium.

There’s something that feels so fresh about the way that the movie uses every trick up its sleeve in service of the entire experience, in a way that other comic book movies tend to shy away from; when was the last comic book movie that was as enjoyable from an audible perspective as it was visual, you know? I don’t just mean sound effects or soundtrack – although, come on: Tim Burton’s Batman soundtrack aside, comic book movie soundtracks are almost all embarrassingly bad, especially in comparison to how strong Scott Pilgrim‘s is, and how important it is to the movie – but dialogue and performances, as well.

Comic book movies, for better or worse – and, really, it’s worse, let’s be honest, are so overpoweringly visual that when there’s good dialogue or strong performances, it seems like a surprise if not a small miracle (Hello, Iron Man!). Somehow, we’ve allowed moviemakers to get carried away with the “pictures” part of comics’ words + pictures combo that story has fallen way, way into the background – Consider Watchmen, which gave lip service to Alan Moore’s writing but had no problems removing a lot of the complexity and the entire (ridiculous) ending. Comic book movies – and by that, I mostly mean superhero movies, because that’s the majority of the genre – end up leaning towards the stereotype of comic book writing, with epic themes expressed in fights and stilted dialogue. Maybe one of the reasons I liked Scott Pilgrim so much was that it had the fights – and what amazing, visually impressive fights they are – but they’re not so overpowering that everything else becomes filler, a generic “what happens in between”.

I’d love to think that Scott Pilgrim will be the kind of film that makes moviemakers look at what they’re doing with their own superhero projects, whether it’s X-Men: First Class, The Flash, Captain America or whatever, and think “Wait, does this make any sense as anything other than an adaptation? Should I be thinking of trying to do more than just add a Danny Elfman-inspired score and get my guy into costume as quickly as possible?” I mean, if I were being entirely honest, I’d love for it to make filmmakers think, “How can I make a movie that’s as exciting and funny and in love with movies and comics and wants to remind the audience to love them as well,” but I’m trying to rein in my hyperbole slightly here. But. But one of the reasons that I love Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World so much is that it transcends the notion of a comic book movie, and becomes a movie that just so happened to be a comic book first. If there’s anything that Marvel Studios, DC Entertainment and everyone else making comic book adaptations should be aiming for, it’s that.

I mean, I can dream, can’t I?

  • Brad Rzanka

    As to the readership for SP being a “very small margin”, that's a “very small margin” of the mainstream superhero readership, which is probably dwarfed by the true mainstream audience (as in people who don't give a rip about the published adventures of flying men in tights) that have discovered the series through the bookstore market, creating the heat that led to this movie being made in the first place. Along with 'Sandman', 'Scott Pilgrim' is one of the only “comic books” that multiple female friends of mine, who adamantly declare that they're not “comic book people”, and have never set foot inside a comic shop, have embraced whole-heartedly.

    As for the movie's box-office failure, everyone is Monday morning quarterback here. My personal feeling is that the film's lackluster returns have nothing to to do with the visibility (or lack of) of the source material, and more with the studio's inability to figure out how to market the film, Michael Cera's overexposure, and a truly horrible late summer release date that pitted it against two highly anticipated superstar vehicles that both overlap with Pilgrim's potential target audiences.

    Anyway, I'll back up other comments that what most posters have missed entirely in what McMillian was saying is not that more superhero movies should BE JUST LIKE Scott Pilgrim, but that, like Edgar Wright did on SP, their makers should try harder to find cinematic stylistic analogues for what made their comic book incarnations unique. Other positive examples of the same could be '300', 'Persepolis', 'American Splendour' and Burton's 'Batman'. He's talking about bold and creative use of form, not directly aping the form or content of SP or anything else. I'd even argue that much of the success of 'The Matrix' a decade ago stemmed from its ability to find an incredibly exciting (at the time) way to translate stylistic devices from comics and animation (particularly anime) to live-action film in a way that few mainstream comics-to-film adaptations have even attempted since.

  • http://twitter.com/mikewhitecomics mikewhite

    I have faith this movie will do well. The dedication of the fans will help it to meet Hollywood expectations. It's still early to speculate, and it opened against some really mainstream heavyhitters. I think the Family Guy could be a good example of the kind of success SP could attain. FG was cancelled, but after the DVD sets came out, it was so successful it was (i think) the first show to ever get back after cancelation. I'd wager it's due to the fans – and with this franchise, they seem a lot more hardcore and loyal than a lot of the comic adaptations of late. In the end, SPvsTW will come out ahead and be a good example of how hollywood should approach production and its valuation of success :)

  • NaveenM

    I fear the “comic book movie” era is coming to a close.
    Maybe. And this is something I suspect as well, but it doesn't take much to be wrong. All it takes is another “300″, which came out of nowhere, to get Hollywood's attention back to comics.

    “Wanted”, BTW, made a ton of money, $340 million (foreign & domestic). And that's just the box office.

    Personally, I think most comics would be better off as TV shows anyway. Let's see how “The Waking Dead” does. If it's a hit, expect Hollywood to find a new avenue for their comic options.

  • NaveenM

    It had a dismal opening. But some movies (“Scream”, for example), often grow based on good word of mouth.

    It's possible this could happen with Scott Pilgrim, considering the good reviews, plus the lack of much of anything else targeting this demographic coming out for the next few weeks.

  • http://atocom.blogspot.com/2010/08/before-scott-pilgrim-wascutie-honey.html Atomic Kommie Comics

    If you liked Scott Pilgrim you should check out the manga-to live action adaptation Cutie Honey.
    Even more manic with lots of manga/comic visuals.

  • Daryll B.

    I will say this, I liked the movie…but I didn't love it. Don't get me wrong, this may be Michael Cera's 2nd best movie to date. However, for a story built on Scott's love for Ramona… I did not feel it on screen… Honestly, I felt more for Knives and some of the exes than I did for the “romantic” duo.

    Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, and the “Twins” knocked their roles out of the park… I still have reservations about using all 7 exes in the one movie… but I can't hate on the video game references and comic book movie allusions…. 3.5 out of 5 stars…

  • Ace CS

    Just count me among those not impressed by the film. I disagree with almost all the OP points (both the general thesis and the specific paragraphical bits).
    The main problem, I think, with the OP’s thesis is that it’s framed by poor inspiration/logic. (S)He assumes that because they liked the movie, it’s some transcendent wonder. No dice. “celebration of filmmaking”? “the potential of the movie medium” WTH? It’s a not the next Star Wars, dude.
    And what’s with the CBM hate? It’s like the OP is confusing CBMs with VGMs. All read this: Joel Schumacher beats Uwe Boll, any day of the week. (Just don’t tell Uwe that; he might actually challenge poor Joel to a fistfight.) Dialogue can be hit and miss, but I don’t think the genre, as a whole, is any worse than the average non-CBM (especially action/adventure romps or “guy movies”). Is it sad that the bar’s set low? Sure. Is it that setting the exclusive fault of CBMs? NO!
    PS. I hope you—the OP—can clarify something: I couldn’t tell whether you’re dissing Iron Man or giving it props.
    Secondly, regarding AXONREY’S POINT… I’m struggling to understand what you even mean by this line: “Scott Pilgrim could have been a good story without the elements of kung fu and video games”. Without those elements, what have you got? No, really. Titanic? A Nicholas Sparks novel/movie? Fight Club? How does Scott fight the exes? Are they killed—rather than turned to coins—or just badly injured? Couldn’t Scott, Ramona or someone else put a stop to all this by calling the cops? What would you have then? I’m totally stumped here. Really, the fantastical elements that are no less essential to this movie than they are to the average CBM (or VGM, for that matter). If not for them, it would literally be a whole different film. Arguing that such a film would be inevitably good is like saying that Superman could save the world without his powers. It’s basically a thoughtless argument informed by nothing but your own bias toward the material.
    Lastly, I feel like I could/should argue the faulty nature of the story itself and its crappy messages—(Girls are easy, and mostly just property/annoyances; lesbians are evil [unless it’s “just a phase”]; Jason Lee is/was a prick [okay, that one’s debatable]; don’t address your problems, just bury them; let your boyfriend fight your battles; killing people is the key to bettering one’s life; etc.—at length, but this probably isn’t the best venue.