I've saw both Scott Pilgrim and The Expendables this week (Pilgrim first on Monday, Expendables yesterday). For all his ranting, Moviebob was spot-on with The Expendables. And while I don't have the same hostility for the movie he did, I found it to be "meh" and not worth remembering.
And as much as I also find Bob's elitism to be as annoying as anyone else here, for once I have to agree with him. Having watched The Expendables, it only further perplexed me how this movie did infinitely well over Scott Pilgrim. And I could only come to the same conclusion Bob did in his review. Or as I like to put it, "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers."
Now before everyone jumps all over me too, thinking that just because anyone here liked The Expendables automatically makes them stupid or reflects badly on their taste in movies or, even worse, reflects badly on them as a person, I'm not saying that. Nor did I really think Bob meant to either. For the record, I strongly disagreed with him both in his assessments of Star Trek and the Transformers movies as I liked them very much (Well, the first one anyway. I find it harder to defend ROTF with each passing day.) But for once, he hit it on the head and we were both on the same page, as we were both frustrated and perplexed on why a movie with little to no substance trumped the more original and substantiative one.
Bob I think was just frustrated at the general populace; the same general populace that made The Jersey Shore and American Idol such big hits. Bob's view of humanity I think comes from the same one I do, which is derived from Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K in Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." So if you liked the Expendables, fine. I wouldn't think less of you if you did. Everyone's got different tastes and we'll politely agree to disagree on this.
However, what I and Bob didn't understand was how so many people just failed to check out Scott Pilgrim. You can't tell me it's a niche movie, especially not when there's a whole generation of people out there who grew up on Nintendo. Even if some of that generation never played them, they at least know about Mario and Zelda (and possibly River City Ransom) and it's very likely that they've seen footage from enough 8 and 16-bit games to know what they look and sound like, thus it was very likely they'd "get" the references. I'm pushing 40 myself, and both I and my girlfriend got a lot of the jokes and references, so I'm not buying the theory that people over 30 wouldn't have understood it either.
I also don't buy the "hipster" theory either. Personally, I'm not sure what makes someone a hipster. I have several friends who are kind of like Scott and his friends, but I'd hardly consider them hipsters. We all just consider ourselves nerds or geeks who are just a little more clued-in, though not better than anyone else. So I never considered myself a hipster, if that's what one is.
The only theory that's plausible is the hate-on for Michael Cera, as I also find him annoying. And when I saw he was the lead for Scott Pilgrim, I had to overcome my animosity of him because the rest of the film looked so good. So I was pleasantly surprised when I found him to be actually good in this movie and not the dweeby milquetoast I've usually seen him play.
Anyway, when all was said and done, Scott Pilgrim was indeed the better and more satisfying film. Exactly why it failed I think will be a question for the ages (and Bob, maybe you might want to devote your next Intermission column to that).
Just one last thing about The Expendables which I'm surprised nobody touched on was that Charisma Carpenter of Buffy and Angel fame was in this movie, but she was only in it for two scenes and was given nothing to do. Having seen how good she was on those shows, I thought it was a waste, though her presence in the scenes with Jason Statham gave him what little characterization he had.