deviant art

Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

August 17, 2010
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 12
Favourites: 0
Views: 1,494 (0 today)
[x]
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.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconflamehead23a:
Bi-furious. that's all I have to say. (until your eventual and hopefully inevitable reply.)
Reply
:icongeneralzoi:
Okay, her "bi-furious" line, and when she called Ramona a "hasbian!" - those were hilarious. An LJ thread I'm going back and forth in made me realize the problems with Roxie don't have anything to do with her sexuality or how they portrayed it, it's more of a gender thing. My problem is in how he defeated her - which is honestly so stupid I don't even want to talk about it - and how he didn't really fight her at all because girls are "soft." I get the good guys don't hit girls, and that a guy punching out a girl has very negative connotations (although they had already shown one instance of it by that point). But he didn't have to hit her with his fists. In the comics they fought with swords. Why couldn't they have done that instead of "girls are too soft to hit" and "defeat by light poking!"? Ultimately I was very put off by the whole thing.

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.
Reply
:iconflamehead23a:
well I think his fight with roxie ended the way it did mainly due to timeliness reasons. The fight couldn't drag on for to long, and having a sword fight at that point in the movie would take away from the fight with gideon at the end. So the solution was to pull something from the comic, originally just used as a stall tactic, and go with that. Besides, they needed to have Ramona show her combat chops too, if only because they hadn't done a ramona/knives fight yet and needed a way to let the viewers know Rammy can scrap with the best of them.

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. ;P

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?
Reply
:icongeneralzoi:
Objectively I understand why they made the choices they did - timeliness, the final fight, etc. - but that doesn't mean it was well done. It's not like I thought anything they did was really wrong or evil, more just easy. Like, if you want to give a gay man a flaw, make him promiscuous! It's like if you have to give a lesbian character a job, and you make her a (butch) gym teacher. It's just old. Instead working to portray a fight between a guy and a girl in such a way that both are equal players, which can be tricky, you just make it so the guy doesn't actually fight the girl. There are certainly worse crimes, but at the same time it's like, "Guys, come on, I know you can do better than that if you really tried."

(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.
Reply
:iconflamehead23a:
I still haven't seen princess and the frog. I gotta get on that...
Reply
:icongeneralzoi:
I don't know if you're into Disney princesses, but it's a visually gorgeous film with some pretty interesting characters. It makes me sad it didn't do better in theaters.

And what you need to do is get on a messenger so I can say hello. Any one will do. :P
Reply
:iconflamehead23a:
Disney in general has always impressed me with their level of quality, be their movies animated, digital, or otherwise. Actually, it's pretty amazing that they've been able to keep such quality so high over all the years they've been around. Right now though, I can't think of disney without thinking abou--TROOOOON.

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.
Reply
:icongeneralzoi:
Yeah, that's me. I didn't realize until after I sent it that that's the only one of my messenger handles that doesn't use Zoi in some way, because it's really old, so I forgot to include an introductory message.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmrsdannyfenton:
I agree that the comics are far better than the movie and I doubly agree that Roxy and Wallace's characters are better portrayed in the comics.

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.
Reply
:icongeneralzoi:
I like the comics, but I have to say, the style is so simplistic that I had trouble telling a lot of the secondary characters from each other. But I actually think Kim is my favorite character from the comics. I think she may have had the most depth out of anyone.

Someone said Kim and Knives actually end up together at the end of the video game. I wonder if it's true.
Reply
Add a Comment: