Scott Pilgrim had a lot of marketing, but that doesn't mean it had good marketing.
Some of it's ads weren't bad, but none of them really seemed to know whether they should advertise to the people who knew what was going on or not. It was a decent film, with some great acting in parts, but I personally agree that it's marketing was just not great.
The ads didn't do a good job of selling the actual draws of the film, plus it came out at a time where there was a kind of popular backlash against Michael Cera because he'd been in a bunch of films where people looked and went "hey he's doing the same thing in every film" which can be argued as to whether or not it is fair criticism to say but it still stands that that is the perception that was going on at the time
G'damm, I love the Bourne movies. Except the Renner one. That one just sucked.
I remember the reason for the Renner one even getting made was because of the colossal financial fallout that was caused by the Scott Pilgrim bomb (a movie that still hasn't made its money back, DVD sales and all)
I liked Pilgrim but it sure did fuck over Universal royally. It's singlehandedly responsible for the Battleship movie, both Smurfs flicks, the unnecessary Bourne reboot, and a few other turds, all made just to bounce back.
That's depressing. Pilgrim is actually a decent movie. I don't understand why it didn't resonate more strongly with people. I dragged my mother out to see it and she actually enjoyed it (I was surprised). Although, now that I think about it she also enjoyed the second Fantastic Four film.
Perhaps it's Chris Evans that she truly enjoyed.
I love the shit out of Scott Pilgrim. I adored the comics, and i thought the film did an amazing job of squeezing everything into less than two hours. I thought Cera did a really good job as the lead, the evil exes ranged from good to great, and the girl who played Knives was amazeballs.
Point being, I loved that picture, but I can absolutely see how it failed. It was a movie about, and marinated in, 90s video game pop culture, where the main character has to go on a literal quest to defeat seven bosses who explode into coins when they die.
You know what you find if you look up "niche" in the dictionary? The definition of the word "niche". Which Scott Pilgrim fucking is.
I don't think there was anybody around who actually thought the movie was going to make any money, which is why I am still amazed it got greenlit, and with a roster of actually good actors and a quality director. The fact that movie even exists is proof that there is a kind and loving God, and that he owns a Sega Genesis.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Scott Pilgrim's greatest failing is pairing some real serious geek/hipster appeal with Michael goddamned Cera.
Like, intentional hipsterdom is obnoxious.
And Cera just has a... I don't wanna say "punchable," but... ok, ya know that thing where you point to an imaginary stain on somebody's shirt? Yeah, and then you flick their nose with the finger you were using to point? Yeah, like Biff Tanen!
Yeah, that's what it would seem the vast majority of humanity wants to do to Michael Cera.
Combine those two elements, and you've got a perfect shitstorm of nobody watching your movie for dollars.
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
nah if the rock was scott pilgrim it would have set box office records
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
nah if the rock was scott pilgrim it would have set box office records
I'd watch that. The same exact movie, except with the Rock, but nobody treats him like the Rock they still treat him like some skinny 23 year old white boy livin' in Toronto. I'd watch it again and again.
+11
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Scott Pilgrim came out the same weekend as The Expendables and Eat Pray Love.
That right there is what killed it.
Neither of those are really behemoths of cinema. It was just crap marketing.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I watched the RoboCop remake last night. It's not awful, I suppose.
Casting Gary Oldham in that kind of film is an error though. He's not prepared or not able to not act, and when nobody else is getting on his level it just comes across as jarring.
I sort of hoped the odd scenes with Samuel L Jackson were going somewhere. I'm guessing those were originally conceived as the trailers but then somebody spent too much on casting and they had to use them.
The action sequences were also pretty dull, which disappointed me. I thought they'd have at least pushed those a bit.
All in all you just wonder why anybody bothered
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I watched the RoboCop remake last night. It's not awful, I suppose.
Casting Gary Oldham in that kind of film is an error though. He's not prepared or not able to not act, and when nobody else is getting on his level it just comes across as jarring.
I sort of hoped the odd scenes with Samuel L Jackson were going somewhere. I'm guessing those were originally conceived as the trailers but then somebody spent too much on casting and they had to use them.
The action sequences were also pretty dull, which disappointed me. I thought they'd have at least pushed those a bit.
All in all you just wonder why anybody bothered
Hollywood trends of grabbing onto anything people have heard of in an attempt to grab more ticket sales, pretty much.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
The biggest influence on movie success is word of mouth, as I understand. And for some reason it just built no momentum.
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
The biggest influence on movie success is word of mouth, as I understand. And for some reason it just built no momentum.
Because it's a nearly impossible movie to sell: It's a rom com, but not really. It's like a video game, but not really. It's about this teenager dating an even younger teenager. It's got Michael Cera, but it's not like one of those bad movies he does it's like... Um... That TV show you never got round to seeing...
Weren't Juno, Superbad and Arrested Development pretty successful? I seem to remember the Michael Cera hate only developing *after* Scott Pilgrim.
Nah, I remember a lot of people (myself included) thinking that Cera was just not great casting for the part. He was certainly the weakest part of the movie, for me.
Weren't Juno, Superbad and Arrested Development pretty successful? I seem to remember the Michael Cera hate only developing *after* Scott Pilgrim.
Juno was very successful, Superbad earned a 170 million gross against a 20 million budget which is stellar. Arrested Development was critically acclaimed but was always one of those shows that seemed to struggle to find its audience (which certainly isn't a sign of poor quality - Community had the same issue).
Weren't Juno, Superbad and Arrested Development pretty successful? I seem to remember the Michael Cera hate only developing *after* Scott Pilgrim.
Nah, I remember a lot of people (myself included) thinking that Cera was just not great casting for the part. He was certainly the weakest part of the movie, for me.
I thought he was just perfect in it.
Probably a case of "comic fans who will never be pleased" TBH.
Weren't Juno, Superbad and Arrested Development pretty successful? I seem to remember the Michael Cera hate only developing *after* Scott Pilgrim.
Nah, I remember a lot of people (myself included) thinking that Cera was just not great casting for the part. He was certainly the weakest part of the movie, for me.
I thought he was just perfect in it.
Probably a case of "comic fans who will never be pleased" TBH.
I think I finished reading the comics after it came out, but I can't quite remember.
I remember thinking that Cera as Scott Pilgrim made sense in that the movie was about a guy trying to get with a girl who has emotional baggage, while growing as a person.
Which is kinda the movie you'd expect from him.
Only instead of talking it out and helping her get through it emotionaly, he beats up the personifications like a video game.
I gotta say I have some problems with the "Just so" stories we tell ourselves why film A failed and film B succeeded. I very much doubt that Scott Pilgrim would have been much more of a success with a different lead, or that a different marketing campaign would have turned things around completely, though they might have had some (probably small) impact. Personally I'm more with ElJeffe; the film was nichey, and that rarely makes for great box office returns.
The biggest influence on movie success is word of mouth, as I understand. And for some reason it just built no momentum.
Because it's a nearly impossible movie to sell: It's a rom com, but not really. It's like a video game, but not really. It's about this teenager dating an even younger teenager. It's got Michael Cera, but it's not like one of those bad movies he does it's like... Um... That TV show you never got round to seeing...
Oh! It's set in Toronto. Want to watch it now?
"And he fights a guy with his magic bass guitar! And his girlfriend carries a giant hammer in her extra dimensional purse! And he has a pee meter!
...hey, where are you going?"
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
My biggest problem with Cera is I felt like he portrayed enthusiasm poorly, which is essential to Pilgrim's I character.
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, though.
+2
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
I watched the RoboCop remake last night. It's not awful, I suppose.
Casting Gary Oldham in that kind of film is an error though. He's not prepared or not able to not act, and when nobody else is getting on his level it just comes across as jarring.
I sort of hoped the odd scenes with Samuel L Jackson were going somewhere. I'm guessing those were originally conceived as the trailers but then somebody spent too much on casting and they had to use them.
The action sequences were also pretty dull, which disappointed me. I thought they'd have at least pushed those a bit.
All in all you just wonder why anybody bothered
Like, there's some compelling shit in that movie!
The drone stuff? Relevant!
Robocop trying to emotionally reconnect with his family after almost dying? Awesome! Super well acted.
The action? Pretty great! Fluid and inventive camera movements, clever cuts and edits, awesome score.
The plot? ... See, they had all this really great setup and then just kind of fizzled because they didn't want Michael Keaton to be a bad guy, like Dick Jones was, they wanted a modern CEO who sees himself as a good guy who wants to help while profiting at the same time. So we don't get a compelling villain, and that railroads the third act tremendously, because instead of getting an emotional catharsis with Murphy's family and a better resolution to the drone initiative, we have a stand-off with a non-threatening non-villain, and then the movie just ends.
They should have just had Jackie Earl Hayley's character in the movie more and have him go rogue at the end if they wanted the pat standard Good Guy vs. Bad Guy showdown. Keep Keaton as a morally ambiguous Steve Jobs type. Just do something that isn't what the movie actually did.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
The one was Edge of Tomorrow and the thread title made me read this entire thread starting from the OP, because I wanted to know exactly how bludgeoned that horse was before starting to talk about the ending. That seems like a wise choice since there doesn't seem to be a reason to continue discussing the mechanics of the ending (I'll just say that I'm firmly in the deus ex machina camp, but it didn't really bother me all that much because time travel is wacky). What disappointed me more than the mechanics of the ending, was the tone of the ending.
I really didn't like the happy ending. Not so much because I didn't think it earned it, but because I thought it did earned a more melancholy ending. I think it would have worked alot better had one of them died in the final assault and then there wasn't any reset (which would have negated the arguments about the mechanics of the final reset as a bonus). I think either one would have worked fine. Either play against the trope and have Rita be the self-sacrificing hero, or have the Cage character arch start as the cowardly deserter and end as the self-sacrificing hero. Either one works. But between the farm scene where she gets pissed off because he's putting her above the mission and jumps in the helicopter even after being told Cage can't save her, and the approach to the Louvre when the one guys asks what he should do if he's attacked by an Alpha and Cage's response is "take one for the team", it really felt like it was going for a "sacrifice for the greater good" kinda ending but then everyone lived happily ever after. It just felt really forced and completely fell flat for me.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the movie. I didn't care for the ending but that wasn't nearly problematic enough to spoil the rest of it even a little bit. The action was top notch, the alien design was fantastic and original, and much of the Groundhog Day middle was genuinely funny (Cage's response to the scientist guy asking him if he's seen anything strange lately made me giggle a bit thinking about it just now) without detracting from the seriousness of the action at all. If you have any interest in sci-fi, you should definitely give it a watch. I just think a different ending tone would have worked better, for me anyway.
The other movie was Big Hero 6. Another one that I really enjoyed, and my 5yo loved it too. I have no idea if it really should have gotten the Best Animated Oscar since it's the only one of the nominees I've seen, but I'm happy it won just for trying to make STEM cool. I still liked The Lego Movie better and it not even getting a nomination is objectively stupid. But it was definitely really good. I just hope it doesn't lose its STEM is cool charm in the obvious sequel that they setup at the end.
The one was Edge of Tomorrow and the thread title made me read this entire thread starting from the OP, because I wanted to know exactly how bludgeoned that horse was before starting to talk about the ending. That seems like a wise choice since there doesn't seem to be a reason to continue discussing the mechanics of the ending (I'll just say that I'm firmly in the deus ex machina camp, but it didn't really bother me all that much because time travel is wacky). What disappointed me more than the mechanics of the ending, was the tone of the ending.
I really didn't like the happy ending. Not so much because I didn't think it earned it, but because I thought it did earned a more melancholy ending. I think it would have worked alot better had one of them died in the final assault and then there wasn't any reset (which would have negated the arguments about the mechanics of the final reset as a bonus). I think either one would have worked fine. Either play against the trope and have Rita be the self-sacrificing hero, or have the Cage character arch start as the cowardly deserter and end as the self-sacrificing hero. Either one works. But between the farm scene where she gets pissed off because he's putting her above the mission and jumps in the helicopter even after being told Cage can't save her, and the approach to the Louvre when the one guys asks what he should do if he's attacked by an Alpha and Cage's response is "take one for the team", it really felt like it was going for a "sacrifice for the greater good" kinda ending but then everyone lived happily ever after. It just felt really forced and completely fell flat for me.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the movie. I didn't care for the ending but that wasn't nearly problematic enough to spoil the rest of it even a little bit. The action was top notch, the alien design was fantastic and original, and much of the Groundhog Day middle was genuinely funny (Cage's response to the scientist guy asking him if he's seen anything strange lately made me giggle a bit thinking about it just now) without detracting from the seriousness of the action at all. If you have any interest in sci-fi, you should definitely give it a watch. I just think a different ending tone would have worked better, for me anyway.
The other movie was Big Hero 6. Another one that I really enjoyed, and my 5yo loved it too. I have no idea if it really should have gotten the Best Animated Oscar since it's the only one of the nominees I've seen, but I'm happy it won just for trying to make STEM cool. I still liked The Lego Movie better and it not even getting a nomination is objectively stupid. But it was definitely really good. I just hope it doesn't lose its STEM is cool charm in the obvious sequel that they setup at the end.
Oh, don't get me started on science guy. That stupid asinine bit of whitewashing made both me and my girlfriend upset.
Whereas for my money your preferred tone re: the ending of Edge of Tomorrow is my despised tone. Glad I won this round. Though I grant the middle of the movie was more...fun. It did the mix of action/drama/comedy really rather well, come to think of it.
I rewatched Big Hero 6 over the weekend, as well as Boxtrolls, and I've seen HTTYD2 a couple times now. Haven't caught the two foreign pics, but I am comfortable with BH6 winning the award for Best Animated Film That Is Not The Lego Movie.
That's the award it won, right? I'm pretty sure that's what they called it. I assume Lego didn't get a nom for the same reason you don't let Stephen Hawking into your middle school science fair competition.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+6
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
But I swear Uncle Stephen only helped with my project!
It should have been titled #firstworldproblems or #richwhitebitchmidlifecrisis
What was crazy to me was hearing the author got paid to write the book before she even wrote the fucking thing. I wish I could do that. "Pay me money to write about my life story BEFORE I FUCKING LIVE MY LIFE!"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I didn't get much out of the lego movie. I'm not sure why.
I was pretty pumped to see it, but it just felt very by-the-numbers to me. Too busy, weird pacing issues; they were moving from one set piece to the next at light speed before I had a chance to enjoy the journey.
Wasn't bad by any means, just a letdown. I would have probably loved it if I were a kid.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Scott Pilgrim was a movie aimed directly at me, and I cringed the whole way through. It is the nichest of the niche, and I can't believe Universal spent $80 million making it.
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
What I liked about the Jeremy Renner Bourne movie was that it was basically Flowers for Algernon remade as an action movie.
I watched the RoboCop remake last night. It's not awful, I suppose.
Casting Gary Oldham in that kind of film is an error though. He's not prepared or not able to not act, and when nobody else is getting on his level it just comes across as jarring.
I sort of hoped the odd scenes with Samuel L Jackson were going somewhere. I'm guessing those were originally conceived as the trailers but then somebody spent too much on casting and they had to use them.
The action sequences were also pretty dull, which disappointed me. I thought they'd have at least pushed those a bit.
All in all you just wonder why anybody bothered
Like, there's some compelling shit in that movie!
The drone stuff? Relevant!
Robocop trying to emotionally reconnect with his family after almost dying? Awesome! Super well acted.
The action? Pretty great! Fluid and inventive camera movements, clever cuts and edits, awesome score.
The plot? ... See, they had all this really great setup and then just kind of fizzled because they didn't want Michael Keaton to be a bad guy, like Dick Jones was, they wanted a modern CEO who sees himself as a good guy who wants to help while profiting at the same time. So we don't get a compelling villain, and that railroads the third act tremendously, because instead of getting an emotional catharsis with Murphy's family and a better resolution to the drone initiative, we have a stand-off with a non-threatening non-villain, and then the movie just ends.
They should have just had Jackie Earl Hayley's character in the movie more and have him go rogue at the end if they wanted the pat standard Good Guy vs. Bad Guy showdown. Keep Keaton as a morally ambiguous Steve Jobs type. Just do something that isn't what the movie actually did.
My biggest problem with Cera is I felt like he portrayed enthusiasm poorly, which is essential to Pilgrim's I character.
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, though.
I couldn't agree more. Scott Pilgrim should be excited about the things he's doing, like Luffy from One Piece. Instead, he was mumbly and distant like, well, like Michael Cera. It just didn't work.
I didn't get much out of the lego movie. I'm not sure why.
I was pretty pumped to see it, but it just felt very by-the-numbers to me. Too busy, weird pacing issues; they were moving from one set piece to the next at light speed before I had a chance to enjoy the journey.
Wasn't bad by any means, just a letdown. I would have probably loved it if I were a kid.
I saw it in the theater. With my then 4yo eldest son. It was the first movie he'd ever seen in a theater. They couldn't have tailor-made the ending any more for me even if they could have directly mined my my dad-feelings brain parts.
Posts
Some of it's ads weren't bad, but none of them really seemed to know whether they should advertise to the people who knew what was going on or not. It was a decent film, with some great acting in parts, but I personally agree that it's marketing was just not great.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I love the shit out of Scott Pilgrim. I adored the comics, and i thought the film did an amazing job of squeezing everything into less than two hours. I thought Cera did a really good job as the lead, the evil exes ranged from good to great, and the girl who played Knives was amazeballs.
Point being, I loved that picture, but I can absolutely see how it failed. It was a movie about, and marinated in, 90s video game pop culture, where the main character has to go on a literal quest to defeat seven bosses who explode into coins when they die.
You know what you find if you look up "niche" in the dictionary? The definition of the word "niche". Which Scott Pilgrim fucking is.
I don't think there was anybody around who actually thought the movie was going to make any money, which is why I am still amazed it got greenlit, and with a roster of actually good actors and a quality director. The fact that movie even exists is proof that there is a kind and loving God, and that he owns a Sega Genesis.
Like, intentional hipsterdom is obnoxious.
And Cera just has a... I don't wanna say "punchable," but... ok, ya know that thing where you point to an imaginary stain on somebody's shirt? Yeah, and then you flick their nose with the finger you were using to point? Yeah, like Biff Tanen!
Yeah, that's what it would seem the vast majority of humanity wants to do to Michael Cera.
Combine those two elements, and you've got a perfect shitstorm of nobody watching your movie for dollars.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
nah if the rock was scott pilgrim it would have set box office records
I'd watch that. The same exact movie, except with the Rock, but nobody treats him like the Rock they still treat him like some skinny 23 year old white boy livin' in Toronto. I'd watch it again and again.
That right there is what killed it.
Neither of those are really behemoths of cinema. It was just crap marketing.
Casting Gary Oldham in that kind of film is an error though. He's not prepared or not able to not act, and when nobody else is getting on his level it just comes across as jarring.
I sort of hoped the odd scenes with Samuel L Jackson were going somewhere. I'm guessing those were originally conceived as the trailers but then somebody spent too much on casting and they had to use them.
The action sequences were also pretty dull, which disappointed me. I thought they'd have at least pushed those a bit.
All in all you just wonder why anybody bothered
Hollywood trends of grabbing onto anything people have heard of in an attempt to grab more ticket sales, pretty much.
The biggest influence on movie success is word of mouth, as I understand. And for some reason it just built no momentum.
It should have been titled #firstworldproblems or #richwhitebitchmidlifecrisis
Because it's a nearly impossible movie to sell: It's a rom com, but not really. It's like a video game, but not really. It's about this teenager dating an even younger teenager. It's got Michael Cera, but it's not like one of those bad movies he does it's like... Um... That TV show you never got round to seeing...
Oh! It's set in Toronto. Want to watch it now?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Nah, I remember a lot of people (myself included) thinking that Cera was just not great casting for the part. He was certainly the weakest part of the movie, for me.
Juno was very successful, Superbad earned a 170 million gross against a 20 million budget which is stellar. Arrested Development was critically acclaimed but was always one of those shows that seemed to struggle to find its audience (which certainly isn't a sign of poor quality - Community had the same issue).
I thought he was just perfect in it.
Probably a case of "comic fans who will never be pleased" TBH.
I think I finished reading the comics after it came out, but I can't quite remember.
Which is kinda the movie you'd expect from him.
Only instead of talking it out and helping her get through it emotionaly, he beats up the personifications like a video game.
"And he fights a guy with his magic bass guitar! And his girlfriend carries a giant hammer in her extra dimensional purse! And he has a pee meter!
...hey, where are you going?"
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, though.
Like, there's some compelling shit in that movie!
The drone stuff? Relevant!
Robocop trying to emotionally reconnect with his family after almost dying? Awesome! Super well acted.
The action? Pretty great! Fluid and inventive camera movements, clever cuts and edits, awesome score.
The plot? ... See, they had all this really great setup and then just kind of fizzled because they didn't want Michael Keaton to be a bad guy, like Dick Jones was, they wanted a modern CEO who sees himself as a good guy who wants to help while profiting at the same time. So we don't get a compelling villain, and that railroads the third act tremendously, because instead of getting an emotional catharsis with Murphy's family and a better resolution to the drone initiative, we have a stand-off with a non-threatening non-villain, and then the movie just ends.
They should have just had Jackie Earl Hayley's character in the movie more and have him go rogue at the end if they wanted the pat standard Good Guy vs. Bad Guy showdown. Keep Keaton as a morally ambiguous Steve Jobs type. Just do something that isn't what the movie actually did.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
*edit* Here it is!
Steam: adamjnet
The one was Edge of Tomorrow and the thread title made me read this entire thread starting from the OP, because I wanted to know exactly how bludgeoned that horse was before starting to talk about the ending. That seems like a wise choice since there doesn't seem to be a reason to continue discussing the mechanics of the ending (I'll just say that I'm firmly in the deus ex machina camp, but it didn't really bother me all that much because time travel is wacky). What disappointed me more than the mechanics of the ending, was the tone of the ending.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the movie. I didn't care for the ending but that wasn't nearly problematic enough to spoil the rest of it even a little bit. The action was top notch, the alien design was fantastic and original, and much of the Groundhog Day middle was genuinely funny (Cage's response to the scientist guy asking him if he's seen anything strange lately made me giggle a bit thinking about it just now) without detracting from the seriousness of the action at all. If you have any interest in sci-fi, you should definitely give it a watch. I just think a different ending tone would have worked better, for me anyway.
The other movie was Big Hero 6. Another one that I really enjoyed, and my 5yo loved it too. I have no idea if it really should have gotten the Best Animated Oscar since it's the only one of the nominees I've seen, but I'm happy it won just for trying to make STEM cool. I still liked The Lego Movie better and it not even getting a nomination is objectively stupid. But it was definitely really good. I just hope it doesn't lose its STEM is cool charm in the obvious sequel that they setup at the end.
Oh, don't get me started on science guy. That stupid asinine bit of whitewashing made both me and my girlfriend upset.
That's the award it won, right? I'm pretty sure that's what they called it. I assume Lego didn't get a nom for the same reason you don't let Stephen Hawking into your middle school science fair competition.
What was crazy to me was hearing the author got paid to write the book before she even wrote the fucking thing. I wish I could do that. "Pay me money to write about my life story BEFORE I FUCKING LIVE MY LIFE!"
pleasepaypreacher.net
I was pretty pumped to see it, but it just felt very by-the-numbers to me. Too busy, weird pacing issues; they were moving from one set piece to the next at light speed before I had a chance to enjoy the journey.
Wasn't bad by any means, just a letdown. I would have probably loved it if I were a kid.
The end really did kind of fizzle out.
But until then it was really, REALLY good.
I couldn't agree more. Scott Pilgrim should be excited about the things he's doing, like Luffy from One Piece. Instead, he was mumbly and distant like, well, like Michael Cera. It just didn't work.
Without an ending.
I saw it in the theater. With my then 4yo eldest son. It was the first movie he'd ever seen in a theater. They couldn't have tailor-made the ending any more for me even if they could have directly mined my my dad-feelings brain parts.