The post-mortems on Scott Pilgrim continue, this one from TheWrap:
“Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World” had everything going for it: ecstatic reviews, a long ride atop Twitter’s trending topics and a boffo buzz boost out of Comic-Con.
Moviegoers never got the memo.
But those who actually saw the day-glo love story almost universally adored it — surely a recipe for word-of-mouth business in week two. Right?
Wrong again: in its second weekend, the graphic novel-based, video game-inspired action/comedy fell to $5.2 million at the box office, a 51 percent drop from its doleful $10.6 million opening.
How could something so intrinsically good — and at $60 million, not cheaply made — go so wrong?
The article suggests five reasons:
1. Genre Confusion = Epic Marketing FailUniversal did the best it could with a steep marketing challenge, according to multiple film marketing veterans who spoke with TheWrap.But the film’s unique concept doesn’t easily translate to a TV trailer. Its mashup of genres — superhero adventure, romance, comedy — left Universal’s marketing team with no precedent to draw upon; they were charting new ground.2. Comic Books Aren’t KingIt’s been a rough year at the box office for second- and third-tier superhero properties. Given the dwindling takes for movies such as “Kick-Ass,” “Jonah Hex,” and now “Scott Pilgrim,” film executives should be cautious before greenlighting the next graphic novel or comic book adaptation (hear that “Green Lantern” and “Green Hornet”?).“There is too heavy a reliance on the fanboy and fangirl crowd, and they don’t always branch out to the mainstream,” an individual with knowledge of the film’s marketing campaign told TheWrap. “You can only dig into the bottom of well of the comic book canon, before you come up with esoteric characters no one’s heard of.”3. At This Stage, Michael Cera Couldn’t Open an Envelope“Scott Pilgrim”s’ fate may have been sealed the moment Michael Cera nabbed the lead role.Cera may have had a hit with “Superbad” and “Juno,” but the credit there may lie with Judd Apatow and Diablo Cody, respectively: Films with Cera’s name above the title since have all bombed. “Year One” earned $43.3 million, “Youth in Revolt” netted $15.3 million and “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” grossed $31.5 million. Like “Scott Pilgrim,” all the these films featured Cera as a mumbling, geeky, and virginal protagonist.4. Slacker FatigueDespite the fantastical elements and efforts to sell its superhero elements, the film’s downtrodden protagonist may have hit a little too close to home: Pilgrim lacks a steady job, sleeps in his gay best friend’s bed and seems perfectly content with his dead-end prospects in a bad economy.“In recessionary time, who wants to see a movie about 20-year-old slacker do-nothings who are in a band? You’d rather slap them than go watch them in a movie,” a film marketing executive told TheWrap.5. The Price TagUniversal spent heavily on “Scott Pilgrim,” in part to seduce audiences with its eye-popping visuals. But that razzle and dazzle came with a hefty price tag. The movie, however, may have ultimately been too offbeat to justify its cost.“This should have never been a studio movie. It feels like an indie movie and if they’d released the movie through Focus [Features] it would have felt more organic,” a rival studio marketing executive told TheWrap.
Takeaway for screenwriters: Focus on #1. Since marketing a movie is so critical to its box office performance, especially with how ‘noisy’ the consumer marketplace is nowadays, generally the simpler the better. Story concept. Genre. Keep it simple. Action. Comedy. Thriller. Those are the main genres in which Hollywood traffics. You can mix two and get away with it. But three? Superhero adventure / romance / comedy. If it’s confusing to the studio’s marketing department, it almost assuredly will be confusing to consumers.
For the rest of the article, go here.
Do you have any final thoughts on why Scott Pilgrim tanked?
Marketing? I got the most advertisement through GITS. I would mention it to friends, but they posed no knowledge/interest really.
Expendables had star power. Scott Pilgrims Epic Epicness just posed fun and originality.
End of summer possibly too.. I haven't even seen it yet! Just end of the summer, no time. Only saw Toy Story 3 and Inception this summer. Scott Pilgrim was my 3rd.. but didn't even get around to that.
Here's why I didn't go see it:
THERE'S NO POINT!!
Just watch the trailer for Pilgrim once and you've watched a 1 and 1/2 hour film condensed into two minutes.
In those 2 mins, you know… 1) That Scott Pilgrim is dating a younger version of Kate Winslet's character in Eternal Sunshine… 2) That she has a long list of "evil" ex's who want to chew on Pilgrim's bones… 3) That Pilgrim will be forced to do what he's never done before: stand up and fight for what he wants… 4) That he will win and get the girl.
OK…. So what? Who wants to watch a pimple-faced, lanky-legged poster-boy for gamers and comic book collectors alike???
Because he's going to kick ass and take names? So what???
The premise doesn't make much sense either… A girl with evil ex's that Pilgrim must defeat to date her? Ok, Hollywood, how bout some REALISM for once?!
This would have been the perfect film to open as a multiple platform release (i.e. DVD, streaming, digital download).
The audience is there — they just don't want to spend $12 to see it in the theater when they can stream a crappy version for free now and eventually stream the DVD version in a couple months. The audience is way more tech savvy than "The Expendables/Eat Pray Love" audience.
Epic fail on the studio's part — not the filmmakers.
I saw it opening weekend and laughed harder than most of the 20-somethings who I thought were the target audience. It was a whole lot of fun.
What makes it a better than average film is that Scott realizes he is not ultimately fighting for the love of a cute girl, but for his own self-worth — that inclusion elevated it for me.
For the last time Kick Ass did not perform badly. It made nearly 100 million worldwide in box office on a 30 million dollar budget. A film that was made independently. I don't understand the need for everyone to say kick ass did not perform well. It was an independent film based on a not that well known comic property with no real stars. (Nic Cage doesn't count anymore.)
Plus it's doin great on DVD so far.
This summer I've seen:
Winter's Bone
Cyrus
Greenburg
Inception
Toy Story 3
Will most likely watch:
The Town
Animal Kingdom
… I feel like a Moviegoer who has transitioned from trusting the film industry to lead me toward films I will enjoy to a Moviegoer who now has to do a lot of research to determine whether I really want to watch a movie or not. I feel like I'm being sold to and no longer "waited on" by Hollywood. The industry has become a Car Salesman (most mainstream film trailers could be compared to the "Sunday SUNday SUNDAYYY!!! local monster truck rally commercials) rather than earning the trust of consumers to become a sort of "family friend" that we can turn to when we need comfort/entertainment. Sure, it's a business. But does it really have to be a no-holds-barred bloodthirsty/money hungry business?? Because I think we can all agree that it's easier to trust a mom-n-pop shop over a conglomerate corporation with nothing but profit on the mind.
1. It looks corny as hell.
2. It looks corny as hell.
3. It looks corny as hell.
4. It looks corny as hell.
5. It looks corny as hell.
This was a complete failure of marketing, if anything. Not one single ad or trailer properly communicated to those unfamiliar with the story (such as myself) exactly why they should see this film. And I still haven't seen the film.
That, and I'd rather watch continental drift in real-time than anything with Michael Cera.
Another post (from Cinema Blend) on 5 reasons for the Pilgrim fail:
1. People Over 30 Don't Get It
2. People Under 30 Don't Get It
3. Geeks Don't Get It
4. People Hate Michael Cera
5. Scott Pilgrim Is A Musical Without Songs
I don't get Michael Cera, seemed wrong casting (one example, in comic, Pilgrim brims with too much confidence, not what Cera brings to mind).
And Beck did the soundtrack, which just seems odd (who were they appealing to?).
The published comic was polarizing, half the folks loved it, half hated it (heard the one sure way to start a troll thread on 4chan, make a pilgrim comment). Other comics that made the leap to movie, Watchmen and 300 for example, were loved by all in published form. (I adored 300 movie, and want to see all of history replayed like this (can't be worse than screwed with textbooks like in Texas), Watchmen movie was good, often very good, but should have been cut by a third).
My takeaway from all of this, keep your budget as darn low as you can, and be gosh darn savvy about marketing (and yes Pilgrim was marketed, but did it clarify story/movie expectations for folks and really draw people in? (not me)).
Edgar Wright, so talented, hope he gets lots more opportunities.
Ultimately, it was an idea that was too hard to execute. In fact, this reminds me of a brilliant article that was published just yesterday by Mark Rosewater, a former Roseanne screenwriter who now designs games for a living. Rosewater noted:
"In the creative process, ideas get all the press but its actually execution that does the brunt of the work. For example, many people can come up with a brilliant idea for a book, but only a small percentage of them are actually able to write the book. The idea to all those people that can't write the book is essentially worthless. An idea that cannot be executed is, to be frank, not worth anything.
"This isn't to say that ideas have no value. An amazing idea in the hands of someone able to execute on it is a powerful and valuable thing. My first point is just stressing not to overvalue the idea unto itself. It's great that you came up with an idea. Just remember that it's only the first step to making the idea a reality. [...]
"One of the biggest reasons ideas cannot be executed upon is that they are too broad in their scope. If you want to maximize your idea's ability to connect with the other pieces it needs, you have to scale down your idea to its simplest form. When trying to plant the inception in Inception, as an example, they spend a lot of time talking about how the idea has to be boiled down to it simplest implementation. Ideas in creative work are no different. [...]
A lot of people think of creative execution as one large singular action. The artist spends time contemplating what he wants to do and then in a fit of inspiration he or she performs the action that completes the art. The truth is anything but. True creative execution is a series of tiny actions strung together. Metaphorically, you might want to think of it as a chain. Yes, they string together to form something substantial but when you look closely you realize that it is the result of tons of little tiny connections. The details are so important because the execution is the details. [...]
"There is always something you can do to improve your idea. The problem is that if you never stop working on it you can never put it out for people to see, and an unseen idea is just as worthless as one never executed. The reason to create is to have that creation see life. To do this, you have to, at some point, stop creating and let it be."
Sorry for the super-long comment but I hope this helps some of your readers as much as it is helping me.
Source: "Making Memories" by Mark Rosewater, Magicthegathering.com, August 23, 2010.
Ultimately, it was an idea that was too hard to execute. In fact, this reminds me of a brilliant article that was published just yesterday by Mark Rosewater, a former Roseanne screenwriter who now designs games for a living. Rosewater noted:
"In the creative process, ideas get all the press but its actually execution that does the brunt of the work. For example, many people can come up with a brilliant idea for a book, but only a small percentage of them are actually able to write the book. The idea to all those people that can't write the book is essentially worthless. An idea that cannot be executed is, to be frank, not worth anything.
"This isn't to say that ideas have no value. An amazing idea in the hands of someone able to execute on it is a powerful and valuable thing. My first point is just stressing not to overvalue the idea unto itself. It's great that you came up with an idea. Just remember that it's only the first step to making the idea a reality. [...]
"One of the biggest reasons ideas cannot be executed upon is that they are too broad in their scope. If you want to maximize your idea's ability to connect with the other pieces it needs, you have to scale down your idea to its simplest form. When trying to plant the inception in Inception, as an example, they spend a lot of time talking about how the idea has to be boiled down to it simplest implementation. Ideas in creative work are no different. [...]
A lot of people think of creative execution as one large singular action. The artist spends time contemplating what he wants to do and then in a fit of inspiration he or she performs the action that completes the art. The truth is anything but. True creative execution is a series of tiny actions strung together. Metaphorically, you might want to think of it as a chain. Yes, they string together to form something substantial but when you look closely you realize that it is the result of tons of little tiny connections. The details are so important because the execution is the details."
Sorry for the super-long comment but I hope this helps some of your readers as much as it is helping me.
Ultimately, it was an idea that was too hard to execute. In fact, this reminds me of a brilliant article that was published just yesterday by Mark Rosewater, a former Roseanne screenwriter who now designs games for a living. Rosewater noted:
"In the creative process, ideas get all the press but its actually execution that does the brunt of the work. For example, many people can come up with a brilliant idea for a book, but only a small percentage of them are actually able to write the book. The idea to all those people that can't write the book is essentially worthless. An idea that cannot be executed is, to be frank, not worth anything.
"This isn't to say that ideas have no value. An amazing idea in the hands of someone able to execute on it is a powerful and valuable thing. My first point is just stressing not to overvalue the idea unto itself. It's great that you came up with an idea. Just remember that it's only the first step to making the idea a reality. [...]
"One of the biggest reasons ideas cannot be executed upon is that they are too broad in their scope. If you want to maximize your idea's ability to connect with the other pieces it needs, you have to scale down your idea to its simplest form. [...]
A lot of people think of creative execution as one large singular action. The artist spends time contemplating what he wants to do and then in a fit of inspiration he or she performs the action that completes the art. The truth is anything but. True creative execution is a series of tiny actions strung together. Metaphorically, you might want to think of it as a chain. Yes, they string together to form something substantial but when you look closely you realize that it is the result of tons of little tiny connections. The details are so important because the execution is the details."
Sorry for the super-long comment but I hope this helps some of your readers as much as it is helping me.
I wanted to see it, but not as much as I wanted to see The Expendables.
And this past weekend lots of other stuff came out.
I think the main reason it tanked was too much competition.
watched the trailer. it feels cool, emotionless, dry. Like the moon. The visuals look interesting, but it's lifeless. From cool to cool.
I totally agree with that last – it was cool like the moon in the worst way. I felt like the characters (with perhaps Ramona and Knives as the only exceptions) were lackluster and too ironically detached for their own good. It was very hard to root for – or even understand – these people, and I'm not that much older than they are.
But let's talk about script failures for a minute. Am I the only one who noticed that the big lesson Scott learns – self-respect or self-worth or self "something" – has NOTHING to do with the trials he goes through? He has to fight for the girl in a series of video game style matches – but fighting is EASY for him. He never bleeds, never feels any pain, and is obviously so good he could spar with Morpheus any day. The kid's a natural and I never thought he was going to lose a fight, not even for a split second. So, the kid's a great fighter; understanding Ramona and accepting her complex past is his real challenge. But, for some inexplicable reason during the last fight, he suddenly "gets it" in some kind of weird realization-gasm that he should be fighting for himself, not to win a girl. Where did this sudden whirlwind of wisdom come from? Not from the fighting itself – that was cake. And if his real challenge was understanding Ramona, how was that solved by sudden self-worth? Know thyself and you will automatically know others??? Ummmm… that's a pretty shaky connection.
In all aspects, I thought this film was fractured, schizophrenic and didn't know what it was trying to say. The visual touches and sound effects were great, but taking a video game overlay and trying to warp it around a love/self-respect story just didn't cut it. It was sloppy scripting, pure and simple.
It looked utterly predictable.
I guess the marketing worked on me. I always wanted to see it. I thought it was hilarious and I was entertained throughout.
I have to agree that the "self respect" thing was a little out of the blue, though. The ending felt v. rambling.
I thought it was a really fun movie but something's wrong if you're not getting people in seats.
So, I guess I shouldn't anxiously await for the sequel? This movie worked on all levels for me. I originally didn't want to see it the first time I saw the trailer, but had my mind changed by the actual target audience for this movie, my alleged children. They enjoyed it, and I've seen it twice. It does hold up to a second viewing, and I agree with those that say it didn't tank, simply because some marketing weenies felt it underperformed at the box office. It will make all its money back, and more for the studio as well as the creators. It's my understanding that they pulled from all the available source material, therefore, a sequel was probably never in the cards anyway, however, that's how the movie ended….
I think one of the main reasons the movie wasn't popular is because it has hmmm… how can I call them.. a kind of identity problem.
Many references are from the 8-bit and 16-bit era. I lived through it and I'm in my mid 30's. The writer and the director are also in that age group. And I guess the executives who developed it are also in that group. But let's talk about the big audience: those younger than 30 aren't that much into retro gaming, they grew up with more realistic graphics and a different kind of games. Pilgrim's references may be too obscure for most of them. Yes, Mario, Sonic and others have had upgrades, but many are completely revised versions of the franchises.
Which brings us back to my age group… many in my age consider themselves "grown ups". They no longer play games because they're too busy between their jobs and family. They don't go to watch movies that often. Many would even be embarrassed to be caught on the line for this movie, remember, they're "grown ups".
My guess: Scott Pilgrim's audience is pretty much the one for Fight Club. The post-X generation. I would predict a similar destiny: a slow rise to cult status through home video.