![]()
In the early stages of my 13-year-old self’s descent into angst ridden and surprisingly itchy adolescence, very few events truly struck a chord with me.
Apathy might as well have been another pair of skinny jeans I tried oh-so-desperately to pull off. (I didn’t, and despite what the doctors say, I still question whether my loins have truly recovered.) However, like any young adult novel will tell you, there comes a single life event that will make you want to stand up and shout—an event that will make you stand in front of a mirror for hours on end, hopelessly gazing into your own eyes, diving into the infinite depths of your own soul. l kept trying to find some semblance of meaning to how or why things are the way they are. For me, this event was the box office flop of "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World."
As of August 13, it has been five years since the release of the 2010 movie adaptation of comic book writer/artist Brain Lee O’Malley’s "Scott Pilgrim" series. Prior to the trailers of the movie, I had never heard of this series nor seen any of the other works of director Edgar Write. Therefore, I lost all hipster cred in being able to say that I was into this series before it went mainstream. Despite this fact, even before seeing this movie I knew it was going to be one of my favorites.
The story is Michael Cera playing 22-year-old Scott Pilgrim and his attempts to date the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers, by defeating her seven evil ex-lovers in an array of video game inspired battles seemed so fascinating in concept and even better in execution. The first time I walked out of that theater almost five years ago, I was truly blown away by a piece of cinema. It had everything I wanted in a movie— an array of well-developed and incredibly cast characters, dialogue that somehow managed to remain constantly witty without every feeling unnatural, an indie rock soundtrack worth downloading legally, Canadians, and so much more. With all of this that the movie had going on, I was left wondering how on a budget of about $60 million after tax rebates, the film only managed to gross $47.7 million at the box office.
To say I was shocked at these box office numbers would have been an understatement. I was astounded, perplexed, astonished, befuddled, and any other words I found in a thesaurus to accurately describe my feelings for this box office bomb. It just didn’t make sense to me. This was a movie I paid to see three times, after all. Despite what the special-snowflake mentality I had at that age would normally make me believe, there was no way I was the only human being who thoroughly enjoyed this movie.
At the time, Rotten Tomatoes had given it an 82 percent. IGN rewarded it an 8 out of 10. Every person I had spoken to simply loved it. So why was something so generally praised making so little money, when movies like the "Transformers" franchise are making billions despite generally being regarded as poor cinema? My answer at the time was simply people don’t like things that are different. Clever, well thought out creations that try to break the mold are usually ignored in favor of more traditional, safe entertainment. It’s for this reason we have a million different procedural cop shows on television; it’s why Adam Sandler is allowed to keep making low-quality movies; and it’s why television shows like "Arrested Development" were canceled in their day. "Arrested Development" dealt with the same problems of "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World," as both were critically acclaimed, both were praised for their experimental approach to storytelling, and both were ignored by the masses.
As the initial rage began to fade with age and life’s other various disappointments (I’m still waiting for you to call me back, Karen), I am able to look at the situation with a more level head. While I still stand by my earlier points as to why not many people saw this movie, I can admit this movie isn’t for everyone. Although I couldn’t understand it at the time, I now see how such a movie wouldn’t appeal to a wide audience. If you don’t like old-school video games, specifically those of the "Mario" Nintendo era, you’re probably not going to like this film. Do you think Michael Cera is a poor actor who does the same thing in every movie? This is definitely not the movie for you. Disgusted with hipster culture? There isn’t enough fire in the world to burn this movie. The film was advertised as a film for nerds, and while I say it is so much more than that, I know how many could think that.
Negative comments aside, the importance of "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" cannot be ignored, as you would know if you have ever had more than three minutes of conversation with me in the last five years. Since its release, I have yet to see a movie of its magnitude. It showed audiences that a movie can be balls-to the-wall insane and still be utterly poignant. It turned this ludicrous concept of killing your significant other's exes into a metaphor that in order to truly be with someone you love, you not only have to accept their faults and baggage, but also overcome your own. It showed us just how imaginative the medium of cinema can be. Sadly, its poor box office reception will deter many film studios from taking a chance on going mainstream with movie experimentation. There is a silver lining however, as "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" has done very well in the home media line, being the number one purchased Blu-ray and DVD on Amazon on the day of its release. It makes sense. After all, just google this movie and you’ll be sure to find dozens of other people raving about its greatness. How and if this film affects the next generation of movies is something I do not know. So for now, all I can really say is, give it a try and see if you like it.
