Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

[Beantown]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Can't wait to finally watch this one this afternoon or tomorrow.

[Beantown]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Just finished watching it.

Wasn't really feeling it for the first half hour or so, but I stuck with it and it was definitely a solid to good movie.

Doesn't come close to any of my favorite movies from 2010, though.

[goh]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Complete stranger.
Never seen or met her before yesterday.
Figured I'll never see her again either way.
Minor physical harm at worst.

So I says...

"I'm in lesbians with you..."
-awkward silence-
"*Frowns and hangs head*...I said lesbians."

She got the reference. We're friends now.

[justamush]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I watched this a couple of weeks ago. I was shocked how awesome it was. Watching it on Blu-Ray with surround sound is .

As for the great debate, I go with Knives

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Typical that this movie wasn't nominated for a best picture Oscar.

If they rewarded movies like this for it's originality, writing and cleverness with an Oscar nom then maybe the industry wouldn't be subjected to the drab, uninspired crap that permeates theaters these days.

[The GIGGAS]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I'm just going to leave this here:

[chilli311]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Typical that this movie wasn't nominated for a best picture Oscar.

If they rewarded movies like this for it's originality, writing and cleverness with an Oscar nom then maybe the industry wouldn't be subjected to the drab, uninspired crap that permeates theaters these days.

This was one of my top two movies of 2010, but what on earth makes it a Best Picture candidate? There's a difference between entertaining movies, and best picture.

By the way, you know this was a comic book adaptation, right? Once again, I'm not knocking the movie since I loved it too, but it's not the one that you want to point to when it comes to originality.

[Fresh Tendrils]

This was one of my top two movies of 2010, but what on earth makes it a Best Picture candidate? There's a difference between entertaining movies, and best picture.

By the way, you know this was a comic book adaptation, right? Once again, I'm not knocking the movie since I loved it too, but it's not the one that you want to point to when it comes to originality.

How does this film not qualify for Best Picture?

And this film is still one of the most original of recent times.

Sent from the bushes outside your window using Tapatalk Pro.

[Kashanova]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

How does this film not qualify for Best Picture?

And this film is still one of the most original of recent times.

Sent from the bushes outside your window using Tapatalk Pro.

the way the film was shot was definitely original

[chilli311]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

How does this film not qualify for Best Picture?

And this film is still one of the most original of recent times.

Sent from the bushes outside your window using Tapatalk Pro.

The best picture, by definition, represents the best directing, acting, and writing efforts put forth for a film.

Look at previous Best Picture winners (I'll stay recent say that the classic argument is thrown out):

The Hurt Locker
Slumdog Millionaire
No Country For Old Men
The Departed
Crash
Million Dollar Baby

All of the movies above combined all of those elements. Great direction, great acting, and great writing.

Scott Pilgrim, while entertaining, did not combine all of those elements to the degree that the ones I listed did. It was great because it was a fun, frenetic movie that catered to the target audience.

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

The best picture, by definition, represents the best directing, acting, and writing efforts put forth for a film.

Look at previous Best Picture winners (I'll stay recent say that the classic argument is thrown out):

The Hurt Locker
Slumdog Millionaire
No Country For Old Men
The Departed
Crash
Million Dollar Baby

All of the movies above combined all of those elements. Great direction, great acting, and great writing.

Scott Pilgrim, while entertaining, did not combine all of those elements to the degree that the ones I listed did. It was great because it was a fun, frenetic movie that catered to the target audience.

If you go by that then how do you explain Avatar that almost won best picture last year? Even Avatar's biggest supporters would agree that the acting and writing was below average.

And how about this year? Uhh.. Toy Story 3? Best directing, acting and writing? C'mon Toy Story 3 was a very fun movie but if that's gonna be a nominee then Pligrim should be a no brainer.

The Oscars have never been an institution that rewards only the pictures that are best in writing, acting and directing. It's always been about politics and bias.

For instance if you saw the movie Buried with Ryan Reynolds then you would be shocked that he wasn't nominated for Best Actor. But since Reynolds is not known for being a great dramatic actor he gets ignored.

[chilli311]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

If you go by that then how do you explain Avatar that almost won best picture last year? Even Avatar's biggest supporters would agree that the acting and writing was below average.

And how about this year? Uhh.. Toy Story 3? Best directing, acting and writing? C'mon Toy Story 3 was a very fun movie but if that's gonna be a nominee then Pligrim should be a no brainer.

The Oscars have never been an institution that rewards only the pictures that are best in writing, acting and directing. It's always been about politics and bias.

For instance if you saw the movie Buried with Ryan Reynolds then you would be shocked that he wasn't nominated for Best Actor. But since Reynolds is not known for being a great dramatic actor he gets ignored.

The difference between Toy Story 3, Avatar, and Scott Pilgrim are that the first two reached outside of just one target audience. I didn't see Toy Story 3 since I still haven't seen part 2, but considering it is the highest grossing animated movie of all time, every review was amazing, and everybody who I've talked to loved it, I can understand why it was nominated. Besides, I heard that the writing and acting was incredible (voice acting is still acting).

Avatar, same thing. Young, old, male, female, color, religion, whatever. Millions of people saw it and loved it, despite the mediocre acting and writing. If the Academy cared only about politics, why would they reward John Cameron, who is widely regarded within the industry, as someone who makes mediocre films with huge budgets?

Scott Pilgrim hit with gamers and comic book fans ages 14-30, with a few people outside that group who enjoyed it.

I didn't see Buried, so I won't comment on that part.

[aholbert32]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

How does this film not qualify for Best Picture?

And this film is still one of the most original of recent times.

Sent from the bushes outside your window using Tapatalk Pro.

I'm not saying that it doesnt qualify for Best Picture but its not like the 10 films nominated for BP arent qualified either. Its not like the Academy nominated Cop Out and left off Scott Pilgrim.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I'm not saying that it doesnt qualify for Best Picture but its not like the 10 films nominated for BP arent qualified either. Its not like the Academy nominated Cop Out and left off Scott Pilgrim.

Right, but to look at the list that was nominated and say that Scott Pilgrim shouldn't be considered is silly to me.

The difference between Toy Story 3, Avatar, and Scott Pilgrim are that the first two reached outside of just one target audience. I didn't see Toy Story 3 since I still haven't seen part 2, but considering it is the highest grossing animated movie of all time, every review was amazing, and everybody who I've talked to loved it, I can understand why it was nominated. Besides, I heard that the writing and acting was incredible (voice acting is still acting).

Avatar, same thing. Young, old, male, female, color, religion, whatever. Millions of people saw it and loved it, despite the mediocre acting and writing. If the Academy cared only about politics, why would they reward John Cameron, who is widely regarded within the industry, as someone who makes mediocre films with huge budgets?

Scott Pilgrim hit with gamers and comic book fans ages 14-30, with a few people outside that group who enjoyed it.

I didn't see Buried, so I won't comment on that part.

So far none of your points have made much sense to me.

Of that previous list you posted all of them are dramas. To me, that makes "target audiences" pretty irrelevant to Best Picture nominations/winners. I don't doubt Black Swan isn't for everyone, but that shouldn't take away from its merit as a superb work of art. Plus, before getting nominated or awarded how many of those films really would have reached the attention of the general public.

I still feel Scott Pilgrim is as good as (and in some cases better than) some of this year's nominees and some of the films in your Best Picture list.

I find it funny that you bring up Toy Story 3, but haven't seen it yet. It is a very good movie and an excellent capstone to a great trilogy. I mainly see its nomination as a gesture and acknowledgment of the series quality and not just TS3. Honestly, I enjoyed How To Train Your Dragon more and felt it was a better movie overall.

[chilli311]

Re: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

So far none of your points have made much sense to me.

Of that previous list you posted all of them are dramas. To me, that makes "target audiences" pretty irrelevant to Best Picture nominations/winners. I don't doubt Black Swan isn't for everyone, but that shouldn't take away from its merit as a superb work of art. Plus, before getting nominated or awarded how many of those films really would have reached the attention of the general public.

I still feel Scott Pilgrim is as good as (and in some cases better than) some of this year's nominees and some of the films in your Best Picture list.

I find it funny that you bring up Toy Story 3, but haven't seen it yet. It is a very good movie and an excellent capstone to a great trilogy. I mainly see its nomination as a gesture and acknowledgment of the series quality and not just TS3. Honestly, I enjoyed How To Train Your Dragon more and felt it was a better movie overall.

I actually wasn't the one who brought up Toy Story 3. I just understand why it was nominated. Any movie that can connect with that many people and do so well deserves to be in the running. I agree with your reasoning for why it was nominated though.

I agree that Scott Pilgrim is as good as, or better than, some of this year's nominees (Winter's Bone was awful IMO). I just understand why it wasn't nominated. Once again, a movie that didn't connect with people from all walks of life.

The reason I brought up target audience is that Best Picture shouldn't have one. Scott Pilgrim very clearly had one. That list I posted was just the previous winners. Historically, dramas just do better when it comes to nominations (47% of the nominations and winners for Best Picture in the history of the Awards). I can only guess on this, but it's probably because comedies typically lean towards certain audiences (I don't see many people over 40 in the theater during an Apatow or Kevin Smith movie). Same with fantasy. A lot of people see dragons and elves, and think, "That's just for geeks." A lot of people hate musicals for the same reason. Action movies typically draw crowds that just want to see awesome visuals, and don't walk out saying, "That [cinematography/acting/directing/etc] was amazing!" They say, "Did you see that dude get cut in half?! That was awesome!" Drama is pretty universal. It's typically easier for a wider rance of people to feel for, and relate to, the characters.

I'm not knocking other genres. My tastes are pretty broad, but when you look at what the general public likes versus what the critics and Academy like, it's pretty easy to guess which movies are going to be in the running every year. As long as the Academy is doing the voting, it'll be the same way, as it should. I have a horrible feeling that if the public had their say, we'd start seeing Transformers 2, and other garbage like it winning.