I saw Scott Pilgrim! And then, because I was curious, I went and read all six volumes of the comic. My conclusion: the comics tell a vastly superior story, not surprising given the amount of they they could afford to spend on it, but the movie was quite enjoyable as well. Although I have to say, both Wallace and Roxie bugged me. Not in a full "These are bad characters" kind of way, more of a "I like them, but I wish they hadn't portrayed this particular thing that particular way." This was a problem with Roxie much more so than Wallace. I like the comic version of both of them much better.
Also, I'm in a bad place with my writing again. I'm back to where I have numerous ideas for stories, but I don't write any of them down. I spent six years there and I don't want to go back, but I'm seriously lacking in motivation right now. Le sigh.
And my only problem with Wallace, because he was for the most part really funny and fun, is just that he seemed to be portrayed as a slut, and I'm really over the whole gay men are sluts thing.
also, I think Edgar Wright was going for a less son-goku scott and a more bugs-bunny scott. he only one his first fight by actually fighting...every other one he used some kind of trick, ploy, or deception to crafty his way into grabbing those coins. That probably is a result of Michael Cerra not looking like or being the most rough-n-tumble action star in the world.
Yeah, Wallace was a bit... promiscuous...a lot more so than the comics. But I think with all the helpful advice and support he gave scott, Wright felt the character needed some vices to balance out. He was Scott's rock for the entire movie, much more so than in the comics, and one of the big rules in storytelling is having a character be wholly good or bad is boring. Besides, it...was...funny?
(Speaking of timeliness, in the comics, didn't Scott and Roxie ultimately trade like one blow that cut her in half, and that was that? There was a lot of lead-up, but the fight itself was short.)
I can understand the changes to Scott's characterization too, and I agree they were probably at least partly due to casting Michael Cera in the role, but I prefer his characterization in the comics as well. I don't believe movie adaptations have to follow the source material to the letter, but comparisons are inevitable. In the film, Scott is just another hero thrown into a fantasy world and freaking out about it, but rising to the occasion, which is fine, but again, has been done to death. I liked in the comics how he was, "Fight your exes? All right, awesome, let's do it!" He was a flawed character, but the things he did he did with energy and conviction, and I just think that's a lot more fun. In the movie it was more Michael Cera playing the character Michael Cera always plays.
This is a bit of a tangent, but one of the reasons I loved "The Princess and the Frog" so much (besides living near New Orleans and understanding every cultural reference they made) was because of Prince Naveen's attitude to the whole thing. He wanted to be human again, but he still had fun being a frog. "Look at how high I can jump! Look at what my tongue's doing! This is fun!" I much prefer that attitude to the usual, "Man, this is freaking me out!"
All that said, Ramona and Roxie's fight was easily my favorite of the movie. I had no problem with Ramona fighting Roxie, I just had a problem with Scott not fighting her for the aforementioned reasons.
tl;dr. Basically, I don't think my peeves were egregious errors, I just expected better.
And what you need to do is get on a messenger so I can say hello. Any one will do.
I'm on yahoo right now. are you CD something? I got a request sometime last night or this morning, but I never talked with whomever made it.
That being said, Roxy is my favorite (HURR DURR I WONDER WHY) and I loved the movie so hardcore.
I know how you feel: I'm in a rut with my writing too and it sucks. ugh.
Someone said Kim and Knives actually end up together at the end of the video game. I wonder if it's true.