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?
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.
Tim Curry in Legend is, in fact, the stuff of Legend. Get on watching that.
Also, yeah, The Last Unicorn isn't exactly a great movie, but I dig it all the same.