Scott Pilgrim is (besides TS3) my favorite film of the year.

My theatre didn’t get Scott Pilgrim and it’s probably not going to so I can’t comment on it’s quality, though I’m an Edgar Wright fan and am still to this day mystified that he was able to top himself with Hot Fuzz after Shaun Of The Dead.

All that being said, in terms of opening weekend figures it did about 7 million more than Shaun of The Dead and 5 million more than Hot Fuzz. Marketing(or lack thereof) can certainly hurt a film’s grosses(Zack And Miri Make a Porno for example) but it also might be that Michael Cera can’t really carry a movie just yet. Youth In Revolt made just under 7 million it’s opening weekend.

I’d put it in my top 3 or 4 for sure. And yeah… TS3 is my top film of the year so far too.

I think marketing failed because it’s just so different from what’s out there that it can’t just be put into a little 30 second TV spot. It’s a comedy, it’s an action movie, it’s a romance, it’s a kung fu film, it’s a musical, etc.

And the thing about the funniest stuff in the movie just can’t be snipped out into a TV spot because many of the funniest lines in the film need context.

I find it sad that a movie this great is flopping so hard right now but I believe it will find a HUGE audience on home video, just like Kick-Ass (another huge hyped underperformer).

It’s been a long time since I’ve twisted the knife in your side Campea, and I’ve been trying to resist, but I just couldn’t!

I’m so shocked! How could audiences not want to see a retarded story about a slacker who gets into 7 pointless fights?

Yeah, you’ll blame the marketing (the last refuge of the defeated) and Michael Cera (though his involvement wasn’t a problem at all just a week ago!) and the tooth fairy if you can find time.

But the problem is the movie. It looks stupid and is stupid. Nobody gives a rip about teen love, or indie rockers or living out some video game brawl. If your idea is stupid and it’s not being filmed by Michael Bay or Paul Anderson then it’s DOA.

You’re entitled to your opinion JaySmack… but the vast majority of those who actually saw the film strongly disagree with you.

I didn’t think the movie looked good whatsoever… until I saw it.

Holding an 81% right now… not bad.

So I agree it looked stupid (marketing), but it ended up being brilliant. You disagree and that’s cool, but recognize you are in the vast minority on that one.

The marketing had its sights set firmly on the nerd/geek/fanboy crowd, and not the general public. As much as many would love to think otherwise, it’s always going to be John & Jane Doe Movie-Goer who make or break a movie and not hardcore fandom.

Yes, Scott Pilgrim is good, and should be properly seen on the big screen (while you still have the chance before it’s quickly yanked from screens). But you can’t blame regular folks for not seeing this based on those trailers/TV spots.

That’s why it wasn’t a surprise whatsoever to see it flop this weekend and yet another example where the Internet hypes up a movie proclaiming how huge it’s going to be…and then isn’t (like Kick-Ass earlier this year, Grindhouse, Snakes on a Plane, Watchmen, Serenity, etc.) The problem is fans still won’t learn from this and they’ll continue to nerdgasm. I guarantee this will happen to another movie.

i don’t think anyone said Scott Pillgrim was going to be “huge” (I know I certainly didn’t).

But yes, the marketing for this film didn’t appeal to anyone. I had little to no interest in seeing myself just based on the ads for it. Edgar Wright was the only reason I was willing to give it a chance.

It’s once again the faliare of american audiences to reconise a good film and their constant celebrating of mediocre ones, it’s nothing to do with the advertising, growns up’s looks like a pile of unfunny s**t with some of the most annoying and overexposed comedians working today, the main joke in the trailer is (the hatefull) kevin james swinging into a tree, or a really big, chisled dude with a squeaky voice, it’s just embarrassing to watch, even in a two minute trailer. Seriously im surprised inception did so well in the current climate of stupid audiences. Shape the f**k up american cinema goers.

Basicaly, if a film as trite and rubbish looking as grown up’s can be a hit, why not something a little dynamic and clever looking like scott pilgrim? the list of good films that were overlooked at the american box office in recent times are endless, zodiac, the hurt locker, the wrestler, the assasination of jessie james, there will be blood, grindhouse (the full cut) kick ass, the list goes ever on. These are classics of our time and this is how they are treated. For refrence, “there will be blood” final domestic box office, 40 million, “wild hogs” final domestic total, 168 million. “Chilling”.

Sean… the problem is that there was nothing “dynamic and clever looking” about Scott Pilgrim. The movie looked like total shit.

I mean sure… the movie ended up being one of my absolute favorite of the year, but it looked anything but “dynamic and clever” due to the marketing.

No John, the “minority” is the audience for this flick. The majority of moviegoers agree with me.
There comes a point at which we have to put our biases aside and admit that SP was marketed correctly, and that people knew about it but nobody wanted it. And that’s why it’s falling like a lead balloon.
It’s already down to #10 for the week not even able to compete with films that have been out for months (Inception) or even this week (Lottery Ticket –PLEASE tell me how this “brilliant” flick can’t bring in more money than Ice Cube).

Scott Pilgrim is no longer circling the toilet bowl, it is gone now. Poof. Finito.

This week cineplexes started pulling it from screens and next week it will move on to the dollar cinemas.
And that’s the way all these crapfest like Kick-Ass, The Losers, McGruber end. Studios have given quirky garbage every chance there is. The films pleased the tiny core audiences this sub-genre may have but they didn’t make any money.
So now we go back to making good films. Until Michael Bay drops another pile on the cinemas. Say, didn’t you love Transformers too?

BTW, RED will crash and burn too. Just in case you were holding out any hopes for that one.

Wow Jaysmack… I’m all for you having your own opinion about a movie… but that was one of the most ignorant comments I’ve ever read.

My argument (which you are clearly avoiding) is that the VAST majority of people who actually SAW the movie, LOVED IT. You can’t deny that.

If you did not actually SEE a movie, you can’t say it’s bad. All you can fairly do is say it LOOKED bad.

The movie (Because of the marketing) looked terrible. Even I say that. If a movie looks bad (how a movie looks is the job of the marketing), people won’t want to see it. Hell… I didn’t want to see it because it LOOKED bad.

BUT… I did see it anyway. And as someone who SAW the movie, I think it’s brilliant. 90% of people who saw it agree.

You also contradict yourself by brining up the “Transformers”. That movie made over $700 million. According to your logic, that means the movie was awesome, because people went to see it.

I don’t think it was great because people saw it, I thought it was great because I saw it, and had a great time (Transformers 2 is another story).

So here’s a question… which movie was better? “There Will Be Blood” or “Kick-Ass”?

Even though I love Kick-Ass, I think TWBB was better. But according to your logic, “Kick-Ass” was better because it made more money at the box-office. That’s STUPID reasoning (I’m not saying you’re stupid, but the argument is).

So you see Jaysmack, you’re just proving my point for me. People who saw the movie loved it. But because the marketing made the movie look like crap, most people didn’t want to see it. Thus, you agree that I’m correct. Thanks.

I havent seen the film itself but I have read the oriongal comic- the fact you said ‘if your idea is stupid and it’s not being filmed by micheal bay’ suggests you didn’t even know it was originally a comic-
again i haven’t seen the film but going by the book it sounds like you havent seen the film – a lot of what you said sounds like a presumption of what the film looked like from trailers or clips!

I have to disagree that the film gave the”impression that it was some sort of artsy (I hate using that word) indie experimental project.” To me the trailer looked like a really stupid teenage comedy. And even after having heard about the great reviews I really have no desire to see it. It just sounds dumb! I liked Shaun of The Dead but did not care for Hot Fuzz. Pretty forgettable.

I disagree with your post blaming the marketing and the trailers of the movie.

As a marketing student and as a movie goer, i think that the trailers were awesome, specially the video game trailer, where you can get items like clips and wallpapers. It was a blow of fresh air and creativity.

They also promoted the movie at Comic-Con and you could find interviews with the cast and director online, there’s even a Scott Pilgrim character maker software.

I posted on Rotten Tomatoes what I believe is the true reason for the box office flop, here it is:

I read on some blogs that some of the reasons for the Scott Pilgrim’s box office flop are that the movie is perceived as a hipster’s movie and that people hates Michael Cera.

I dunno if i got the hipster concept right, but Scott Pilgrim is not a hipster… he shares a single room cheap department with a gay man, which owns the place and pays the bills, he even sleep in the floor sharing the same sleeping bag. He is unemployed, buys second hand clothing and plays in a lousy band for no money at all.

I think Michael Cera is the perfect choice. He is just an average skinny white guy like Scott Pilgrim.

Now the thing is that America hates to face reality in movies… America likes to dream big, no wonder the blockbusters shows completely unreal people living completely unreal lives. America hates to look itself at the mirror and see its true face.

Yeah, there are more Michael Ceras/Scott Pilgrims out there than Brad Pitts and I believe that people hate to see that in the movies. They want to see epic stories with almighty heroes.

The sin of Scott Pilgrim, even with the video games gags, it’s that is just too close to reality and mainstream America hates that.

To the mainstream, its better to watch a bad ass group of 60 year olds killing random people or a silly Disney love story where everything goes according to the plan and the rich handsome prince falls for the beautiful princess. Oh yeah! let’s keep alive the American Lie (Dream).

For people that claims that Inception did well in the Box Office, its shows super smart and good looking people with lots of money in fantasy worlds with some philosophy to back up the idea. No major change.

Look at the Oscars, Sandra Bullock, an overrated actress, won the price over a fat black girl. I also thought that Precious was a complete well done downer, and as many i skipped it, but it was way better than Bullock’s cliche movie. Plus there are more fat black girls out there than Sandra Bullock look a likes.

As long as the movies and tv shows keep shown good looking people living extraordinary and unreal lives, where you can have a two story house in suburbia, 2 cars and date hot girls working a part time job at Wallmart, America will be happy to pay for the ticket.

But god forbids you to show the ugly truth because they will crucify you at the Box Office. No matter how much you invest in FX and marketing, if your movie reminds people of their awful lives in some way, it will flop.

Hey Man you have interesting points.

A couple of weeks ago I saw the trailer for ‘Scott’ and was peeved by it’s bombastic nature and visual style.
It was just like some soggy eyed marketing executive deduced that ‘the kids’ love Video Games and underground music and fashioned a trailer with the qualities of a McDonald’s toy; obviously targeted market, disposable and cheap.
With not intention of seeing the movie I was so told over and over by Critic and friend that the movie was pretty solid and not as blood thirsty as it is depicted. So when it flopped, I was mixed in feelings.
I saw it; pretty interesting.
That said I feel that the movie does try to hard to show it is in the ‘know’ and still come off as flashy.
We know what is liked, I don’t want it shoved down my throat. Nevertheless the subtle humor made the movies for me and I have to admit the Seinfeld reference, which is really only ‘Family Guy’ quality was a great touch.
So yeah, the marketers tried way too hard but the movie do a little bit too.
It’s better than Okay.

I still don’t know why people are disliking this movie so much, I thought it was good because of its originality, but I guess thats just me.

best movie this year so far. Its just that it didn’t look that good until you actually see it.. which was already stated xD