The Big Picture: The Numbers

[DearFilm]

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

Exactly. Angry nerds might say "oh the expendables was trash and is only a pander to the lowest common denominator" but they don't realize Scott Pilgrim and other "geek" movies are the exact same thing, a pandering to a the lowest "geek" denominator.

But since geeks are so much better than everyone else, their lowest common denominator is still genius by comparison. Obviously.

 

[Anchupom]

That's majorly upsetting. I would have happily forged a fake I.D. to get into that film when it was out, if my birthday hadn't happened yet.

It sounded incredible! Damn you, Universal, you were the best studio and now you've gone back to your wicked ways...

 

[Xenominim]

Scott Pilgrim decided to target the geek demographic and failed to make a profit, that was the issue. To someone who knows games and geek culture, by and large yes the movie is wonderful (though even many people there didn't enjoy it). But if you don't know geek culture, well then the movie is bound to be terrible. All those videogame sound and visual effects, guys turning to coins, anime style fight scenes, if someone isn't into that kind of stuff it comes off as completely random and idiotic with no explanation given as to why those things are happening. I know perfectly well that my parents wouldn't enjoy the movie, my mother has only ever played Tetris, and my Dad hasn't played anything since the original NES, they're not going to get why a 64 hit combo popping up randomly during a fight is funny. So I don't blame most people for not seeing and enjoying it, the movie is only entertaining if you get the references.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I would have loved to been able to see Scott Pilgrim in theatres, but I was never given the option. Did buy the Mega Pack with DVD and Blu Ray and a digital copy, but I can only do so much.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Ugh...

While I agree the cancellation of Mountains sucks and I liked Scott Pilgrim when it came out, the rest of this video just sounded.... bland and preachy.

Look, I've never seen the Expendables so I can't say how good or bad it is (its doesn't look fantastic, but I'll wait till I see it to reserve judgement), but blaming the audience that went to see isn't necessarily a good response. Look, when I watched Scott Pilgrim I knew that even if it were to be the only movie that came out that weekend and the weekends after that that it still probably wasn't going to do well BO wise. Why? Because it had a very niche audience. This isn't an issue of the movie-going populace being idiots, this is an issue that this was a movie that only really had a particular audience in mind. No amount of advertising or availability was going to change that. You may argue that if they were "smart" or "sophisticated" that they would see it, but thats stupid. Even after watching Scott Pilgrim, my second favourite movie of the summer (first was Inception), I did not think it was some sort of god-send that shook the industry. It was fun, funny, and clever sure, but smart? Perhaps smarter than the other movies released then, but not enough to classify it as "smart".

Besides which, think of this at least. Consider the top 3 movies in the BO the next few weeks after Scott Pilgrim was released: The Expendables, Eat, Pray, Love, and Vampires Suck. What do these movies all have in common? Poor reviews, but also follow some cookie-cutter production. Which means what a person expects is what they get. You say that these movies did well because the audiance are morons, but think about it for a moment: how many people are able to see several movies in a week? In this economic climate not many, so rather than take a risk nd potentially find yourself not liking something (again, unless the movie itself was changed I can't imaginethe same audience that saw the Expendables liking Scott Pilgrim) or go with whats safe and get the most bang for your buck.

If everyone had the time or the money to see every movie that comes out then one movie not doing well would be a problem of the audience (or, "gasp", a problem of the movie), but when most people are in a sitation where they have to put their priority for living above their priority for entertainment in general, do you seriously expect them to go out on a limb for an audience they have no connection to? I like several movies, games, and music that sometimes just doesn't bring in enough to justify other new things, which indeed bums me out, but I do not expect the rest of the world to bow their likes and dislikes to mine just so I can have more stuff and they can have less.

 

[DenSomKastade]

Splendid episode! I think it is quite aparent that subjectivily good stuff doesn't get rewarded with subjectivily good stuff.

 

[kickyourass]

As if I needed another reason to hate The Expendables, god this species sucks sometimes.

As an R-rated, money making movie you would think that people would use The Expendables as a reason to make At the Mountain of Madness. Scott Pilgrim was a PG-13 kiddy-love-story. Its success would have in no way aided the creation of Mountains of Madness, save to give the production company extra money. From a standpoint of audience and market, Expendables seems to me to be absolute proof that R-rated entertainment can make money.

Could there be any better way to show that you missed the point? Mountains of Madness, wasn't JUST an R-rated movie, it was an H.P. Lovecraft movie, and H.P Lovecraft isn't exactly the world's biggest money maker, pair that with Del Toro (Who's movies a usually cult hits but rarely hit it big in theaters) it was a big risk. Scott Pilgrim, as Bob said, was based on an independent Canadian comic book, with a heavy helping of geeky references on top of it, (You know, kind a risky investment) if Scott Pilgrim had made money at the box office, the people helming projects like Mountains of Madness would be more likely to take that kind of risk, but Scott Pilrim didn't make money. You know what did make money? One of the biggest wastes of time in the history of cinema, a pandering, painfully boring action movie, filled with amazing talent that it did absolutly nothing with. But because it made shitloads of money instead of Scott Pilgrim, the heads at Universal were not willing to take a risk as bit as Mountains of Madness.

Getting it now?

I understand your point, but it still makes little difference to me in terms of my original idea. Scott Pilgrim would have proven a larger point about the marketability of an unknown property, but other than giving Universal capital needed to invest in another movie, its success would have been widely moot when it comes to making At the Mountains of Madness. Scott Pilgrim appealed to the polar opposite sensibilities of the audience Madness would court. Scott Pilgrim failed for reasons totally unrelated to any problems that would plague Mountains.

Scott could only be marketed as a film for young hipster video gamers who are thick skulled emotionally stunted whiners (if indeed protagonists are the surrogate for the audience). Scott Pilgrim could never draw in older more savvy or romance-averse audiences. From a marketing standpoint, Scott Pilgrim was a male oriented chick flick that could only alienate people from there. Madness would be a large scale sci-fi horror film that could bring in anyone looking for a bold, beautiful, fairly original tale or terror. Horror movies, even R-rated ones rake in cash.

Universal should look at films like The Expendables, as well as the success of Aliens to justify the creation of Mountains. Saying that Scott Pilgrim's failure killed Mountains is like saying that Love, Actually was the reason for the success of The Descent.

The problem isn't the different content of the two movies (Cause it's kinda hard to get any more different) it's the fact that because Scott Pilgrim, a high risk project, got crushed at the box office by a bland, unoriginal waste of time, Universal didn't want to risk the kind of money on Mountains, even though it would've been a MASSIVE hit, hell even you don't even need to be a Lovecraft fan to see that. But since they were dealing with a director who isn't exactly a big ticket name, with source material unfamiliar to a lot of people, and an actor who isn't exactly popular at the moment, they saw it as a risk and didn't go for it (At least that's the way it looks to me).

 

[gorfias]

Movie lovers should root for the movies they love to make it big and celebrate when the ones they despise fail. Things aren't always going to go your way. Oh well.

ITMT: this guy also made Hellboy 2, which was a terrible let down. It had so much promise (tooth faries) but got dull and sappy. The Love Craft story was not a guaranteed success. Lovecraft movies have been made, and they've been fun, but they've also been low budget gross out movies as they should be.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I totally agree with this apart from:
1. The expendables was actually a pretty good film.
2. Scott pilgrim was an incredibly poor film.

Thanks for ripping the words directly out of my mouth.

Y'know, perhaps Scott Pilgrim would've made money at the box office if they hired an actor that didn't suck and it wasn't a totally shitty film to begin with. I mean, yeah, it's better than it's source material, but that isn't saying much.

 

[Jamous]

And now I finally know -why- my biggest thing to look forward to was cancelled. Box Office, you are a dick. As a big-time Lovecraft fan, and great supporter of Del Toro, I gotta say; that hurts, Universal. That hurts.

 

[gorfias]

Movie lovers should root for the movies they love to make it big and celebrate when the ones they despise fail. Things aren't always going to go your way. Oh well.

ITMT: this guy also made Hellboy 2, which was a terrible let down. It had so much promise (tooth faries) but got dull and sappy. The Love Craft story was not a guaranteed success. Lovecraft movies have been made, and they've been fun, but they've also been low budget gross out movies as they should be.

 

[370999]

snip.

Well said good sir. I actually like SP a lot, I found it funny and the action good, it is nowhere enar as good as Bob made it out to be. Isn't this a lot like getting PO about Waterworld not making it's money, the project was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

Also didn't Bob really like GI Joe? I don't think you can quite pull the king fo the nerd heap with liking thaat.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

More Scott Pilgrim bullshit? Also The expendepals was not that bad. There are worse movie out there like Twilight

Your lack of ability to spell and use proper punctuation really hurts your argument.

Really, Bob had a great point there and it's completely true. Just as ratings determine whether or not a show will continue, the box office decides the fate of movies.

 

[CronoT]

This is the same exact reason that they made 7 SAW films: because gullible people with too much money and not enough sense/taste kept going to see them.

The original SAW film was a masterpiece of psychological suspense and horror. It kept you guessing right up until the end, literally. The second one was decent, if a little rushed. All the rest were just a filthy cash grab.

If we're lucky, Bob, Nintendo or MS will greenlight that as a game, a la Eternal Darkness. A guy can dream.

They already made a SAW game and it sucked out loud.


However they also made a Scot Pilgrim game and it did not suck out loud.

The Scott Pilgrim game has the good fortune to come from a well-known and pedigreed type of game: Beat 'em Up's. Three great ones I can think of off the top of my head is X-Men Arcade game, Simpsons Arcade game, and TMNT Arcade game/TMNT IV.

 

[Giest4life]

The last line struck me as especially venomous. See, Mr. Bob, you have a right to be angry if this was a perfect world, but as you have said numerous times, this isn't a perfect world. This has always been the way, artists and artisans were always dependent upon their patrons for their livelihood. Just as movie and game makers today are dependent on the stockholder, who don't want to deviate from the stable way to make money, artists throughout history have always bowed to the current fashion with a few notable exceptions, of course.

 

[archabaddon]

My only thought after watching this was "...and the exact same can be said for gaming." It's always about the bottom line.

And because of that, it's always about the Lowest Common Denominator. I severely doubt Larry the Cable Guy could get behind Scott Pilgrim and Lovecraftian horror; however, fast cars, T&A, explosions, and gun fights, well, those are more Larry's style. I'm not saying that it's good nor bad, it's just the way it is (especially given the average education level in the US, but that's a topic for another day).

The problem with making niche movies is the niche audience, which won't pull in the big bucks. Scott Pilgrim was a great movie - if you're into Scott Pilgrim or just a broader sense of movie inspired by a graphic novel inspired by Japanese manga. I mean, that is pretty niche. Is anyone wondering why it didn't break even until it went to disc? I'm certainly not. It certainly doesn't have as broad of an appeal like something more mainstream, like Superman or Batman. It's not even the same level as TMNT, which had a cartoon show to push it to the mainstream before it had any movies.

That being said, terms like "good" and "Crap" are extremely relative. Apparently, lots of people thought Scott Pilgrim was crap. Some would call that blasphemy. But as Bob more than points out, the money talks.

 

[DearFilm]

As if I needed another reason to hate The Expendables, god this species sucks sometimes.

As an R-rated, money making movie you would think that people would use The Expendables as a reason to make At the Mountain of Madness. Scott Pilgrim was a PG-13 kiddy-love-story. Its success would have in no way aided the creation of Mountains of Madness, save to give the production company extra money. From a standpoint of audience and market, Expendables seems to me to be absolute proof that R-rated entertainment can make money.

Could there be any better way to show that you missed the point? Mountains of Madness, wasn't JUST an R-rated movie, it was an H.P. Lovecraft movie, and H.P Lovecraft isn't exactly the world's biggest money maker, pair that with Del Toro (Who's movies a usually cult hits but rarely hit it big in theaters) it was a big risk. Scott Pilgrim, as Bob said, was based on an independent Canadian comic book, with a heavy helping of geeky references on top of it, (You know, kind a risky investment) if Scott Pilgrim had made money at the box office, the people helming projects like Mountains of Madness would be more likely to take that kind of risk, but Scott Pilrim didn't make money. You know what did make money? One of the biggest wastes of time in the history of cinema, a pandering, painfully boring action movie, filled with amazing talent that it did absolutly nothing with. But because it made shitloads of money instead of Scott Pilgrim, the heads at Universal were not willing to take a risk as bit as Mountains of Madness.

Getting it now?

I understand your point, but it still makes little difference to me in terms of my original idea. Scott Pilgrim would have proven a larger point about the marketability of an unknown property, but other than giving Universal capital needed to invest in another movie, its success would have been widely moot when it comes to making At the Mountains of Madness. Scott Pilgrim appealed to the polar opposite sensibilities of the audience Madness would court. Scott Pilgrim failed for reasons totally unrelated to any problems that would plague Mountains.

Scott could only be marketed as a film for young hipster video gamers who are thick skulled emotionally stunted whiners (if indeed protagonists are the surrogate for the audience). Scott Pilgrim could never draw in older more savvy or romance-averse audiences. From a marketing standpoint, Scott Pilgrim was a male oriented chick flick that could only alienate people from there. Madness would be a large scale sci-fi horror film that could bring in anyone looking for a bold, beautiful, fairly original tale or terror. Horror movies, even R-rated ones rake in cash.

Universal should look at films like The Expendables, as well as the success of Aliens to justify the creation of Mountains. Saying that Scott Pilgrim's failure killed Mountains is like saying that Love, Actually was the reason for the success of The Descent.

The problem isn't the different content of the two movies (Cause it's kinda hard to get any more different) it's the fact that because Scott Pilgrim, a high risk project, got crushed at the box office by a bland, unoriginal waste of time, Universal didn't want to risk the kind of money on Mountains, even though it would've been a MASSIVE hit, hell even you don't even need to be a Lovecraft fan to see that. But since they were dealing with a director who isn't exactly a big ticket name, with source material unfamiliar to a lot of people, and an actor who isn't exactly popular at the moment, they saw it as a risk and didn't go for it (At least that's the way it looks to me).

I think we're both right for different reasons, if that doesn't sound like too much of a cop out. As we both said, Scott Pilgrim would have proven a broad-field hunger for 'original' content (they were both adaptations, after all). I think that if Universal did view the failure of Scott Pilgrim as a reason for ending Mountains, though, they made a massive tactical error.

 

[Weresquirrel]

A Del Toro movie involving Lovecraftian horrors gets waylayed, while they make Fast and the Furious 6?! That's it, I'll be in the Angry dome!