I only watched the first half- I agree that all the characters have no personality at all.
I don't think that gay guy was looked down upon, he was way above Scott. He was promiscuous, but whatever. There's plenty o films where straight guys n girls are promiscuous.
The girls were all a bit hollow n sad, but like I said, nobody was a really interesting character.
I agree that it's really uninspired writing, but I didn't find it offensive.
Oh and all the girls were complete evil bitches, BUT I kind of get that. It's like when you make a romantic comedy about a fat girl where all the guys are total dicks. Scott's a loser in this film; he's like 20 and lives across the road from the house he grew up in, in his friend's appartment, in a shit band, playing Nintendo games. Also he's Micheal Cera.
The story's obviously from his point of view, and also the author guy's (probably similar) point of view, so I just find it interesting that all the girls are horrible people in this film. Whether it was intentional or not, it shows you how Scott and the author see the world.
Scott Pilgrim vs. Gender Equality and Classic Video Games
I fail to understand your argument. I'm assuming you are trying to say Ramona is a anti-femanist?" @Icemael said:
" @DevWil said:i don't see how scott pilgrim vs the world doesn't totally treat women as "the other" and, as i said, antagonistic and shallow because of their status as objects of desire and/or difficulty. none of the women had any meaningful motivations or redeeming qualities, in my opinion. virtually all of the female characters were motivated by what men thought of them and were either obsessive or emotionally detached. again, maybe i misinterpreted an overall lack of depth in any of the characters for anti-feminism, but that doesn't make it a good movie. i don't think it was malice on the part of the filmmakers; i more think that they made very flat characters that fall into disappointing stereotypes. regardless of if the characters are as offensive as i thought while watching it, it's a very unsophisticated screenplay. misogyny and homophobia aside, i still really think the jokes were mostly dull and it was just a collection of cliches. "" when female/minority characters are defined only by stereotypical roles and characteristics, a story should be criticized as such.You're missing my point, which is that unless the movie specifically attributes the female characters' personalities to the fact that they're female (as in they are the way they are because they're women, and only because they're women), there's nothing "sexist" or "misogynistic" about it. You can speculate on whether the creators are sexists, but there's nothing sexist about the film itself -- and it's the film you're reviewing. "
at this point, i can concede that maybe i emphasized and was too acutely aware of the flat female characters and didn't take into account that none of the characters were very interesting. misogyny is something that really bothers me and i really believe that it still exists in 2010 because of continuing anti-feminist depictions of women in media. "
As a girl, I think feminists suck. So long as I can get the same pay and any job a man can have, that is all that really matters. Women have a role in life like men do, and we see life and act in different ways. A large portion of woman's life's are the man they are with at the time. With the other stuff, remember cliches are funny sometimes. Males and Females compete for each other all the time without really realizing it, it is primal instinct. You are reading way too much into a silly movie.
I think the chick playing Ramona is hot.
unless you yourself feel like women aren't as human as men, i don't see why you'd think feminism sucks. you said you think "feminists suck" and maybe that's literally what you meant, but don't mistake crazy people who think men are uniformly evil for the idea that women should be respected as ends in themselves. maybe you think feminism is irrelevant in the 21st century, but i don't think you have to look very far to see that women still aren't given the respect that men are. women are treated like objects or subhumans all the time and the worst part is that a lot of women buy into it themselves. the reason people of both sexes buy into it is because of popular media portrayals of either sex. that's why it's important (to me) to criticize things that present images of women as objects with no desires or agency of their own.
why did ramona date scott? because scott wanted to date ramona. she wasn't interested in him at all (and the movie did a terrible job of indicating that there was anything for scott to like about her or her to like about scott), but because scott wanted to have her...he could. i was hoping the end of the movie would reverse/negate/criticize the characters' past actions, but nope...ramona wants to move on until scott says "hey wait, i think i still want you to be my girlfriend."
obviously, i think feminism is very interesting and i could talk about it for a long time, but i'll stop myself now.
@Ryax: you're good at the internet. very good.
(note: I have not read the comics and are completely unfamiliar with them)
Like a lot of others, I find this review completely ridiculous. Yes, there could have and should have been more character development, I can totally agree on that aspect. But does that kill the movie? Absolutely not.
This movie isn't sexist or misogynistic. It's telling a story from a character's point of view. A character, I should add, that isn't afraid to cheat on and dump his girlfriends on a moments notice. In fact, throughout much of the movie, I expected Ramona to have to fight some of Scott's exes in the end. He spends much of the movie mourning a girl that dumped him previously, and the rest of the time fighting for his newest fling. If anything, Scott is defined by his relationships more than Ramona is.
If you don't find Knives to be identifiable and likable, than I don't know what to say, other than your heart is made of ice. She idolizes Scott as this older guy whose in a band. (By some weird coincidence, I am in a similar relationship, except I'm the younger guy). This awesome guy picked her, the foreign girl, over what she probably assumes is a pick of the litter. Having experienced high school (:P), I know that her reaction to the relationship, and reaction to the subsequent dumping, are realistic (though, since this movie is full-throttle, her reactions, along with the reactions of everyone else, are excentuated).
Likewise, the bands' drummer and Scott's sister were both very likable. They weren't the typical warm and fuzzy support roles you'd see in a typical movie, but they both had a lot of character and they could never be confused as anything other than positive characters, despite their gruff exterior.
If they were going for a stereotypical gay guy, there are a hundred other less-likable routes they could have taken his character in. They could have made him extremely flamboyant (FABULOUS!). They could have made him the meek-suicidal stereotype that CBS would like you to believe. Hell, in most hollywood movies, the homosexual character isn't played by the most attractive person in LA. To have a straight guy rooming with a gay guy in itself may be groundbreaking for american cinema. It was refreshing to have a character that was gay but wasn't defined by how gay he was. Outside of the "bed" scenes and him stealing Scott's sister's boyfriend away from her (WHICH WAS HILARIOUS) you wouldn't even know that he was into men. I don't know if I've seen that before. Would you have prefered a Wayans Brothers interpretation?
What was said about Ramona was true. She very much was a younger Eternal Sunshine heroine, and I didn't like that character a whole lot. But as I said before, Scott was just as controlled by his love life as she was, and she was arguably the much more valiant character.
i don't find knives to be identifiable or likeable because she was an obsessive, one-dimensional character. i think your reaction to the characters is way off. i'm not going to be able to change your mind, so i won't try.
@Snipzor: i thought he was a punchline and looked down upon by the characters and the film's tone. the fact that he was promiscuous was a pretty stereotypical portrayal of a gay man.
Let me put it this way. We are seeing the world through his eyes. That's why when he punches a guy, he goes flying through a wall, with sound effects bursting from their fleshy seams. He isn't necessarily actually fighting the exes, he's simply fighting what they represent; his obstacles in getting to know Ramona Flowers. The fights are simply a metaphor, displayed in glorious special effects at your local cinemaplex.
Did you truly not know anyone (guy or girl) like that in high school? Someone who clinged to an older significant other seemingly every minute of the day? Or were you homeschooled? Because that seems like the only way you could have missed such a thing. I can't understand why every character has to be a Stepford Housewife for them to be likable for you, but to each his own I guess.
" @DevWil: If he was looked down upon, it's because he was kind of a dick and not necessarily because he was gay. Although I haven't seen the movie and I've only just now starting reading the comics. But from what I gather, he is an asshole and doesn't really seem that stereotypical. Unless your idea of stereotype is different. "He was a smartass who was probably the most normal out of every character.
He had sex with people because he was that good.
He constantly tried to get Scott to realize the mistakes he was making.
" @Snipzor said:So he is the asshole of the bunch. Thought so." @DevWil: If he was looked down upon, it's because he was kind of a dick and not necessarily because he was gay. Although I haven't seen the movie and I've only just now starting reading the comics. But from what I gather, he is an asshole and doesn't really seem that stereotypical. Unless your idea of stereotype is different. "He was a smartass who was probably the most normal out of every character. He had sex with people because he was that good. He constantly tried to get Scott to realize the mistakes he was making. "
@AgentJ: you're just wrong. we're not seeing the world through his eyes. the movie follows scott, yes. he's the main character, yes. but this is not scott pilgrim's story. it's a story about scott pilgrim. there's a difference and the explicit third-person narration makes it clear that he's not the one telling the story. if it was from scott's perspective, the movie wouldn't have had a third-person narrator (that wasn't scott) telling the audience that the breakup he mentions at the party wasn't mutual like he says it is. the filmmakers' hands are all over the film in all of the unique visual stuff. it's never indicated to the audience that we're seeing it this way because only scott is. we're shown a fantastic world, but we're supposed to suspend our disbelief and understand that this is what everyone in the world of the movie is seeing. people other than scott comment on the absurdity of their world throughout the movie and there's no indication that this is purely subjective to scott.
you're wrong, dude. there's absolutely no room for interpretation on this particular issue. seriously. the sexism/homophobia/quality of the film in general...that's all up for debate, but the movie is most assuredly not from scott's perspective. it's from the filmmakers' perspective and it's narrated from the third person throughout the entire film. i think it's pretty obvious if you think about it.
and no, i really think the characters are flat. just because they remind you of real people you've met doesn't mean they're not.
" @Snipzor: haha dude, don't criticize my review of the movie if you haven't seen it yourself, man. come on. but no, i think he's definitely outcast because of his homosexuality and the movie doesn't say that's not okay (at least, not in my interpretation). scott tells him to leave the apartment so he doesn't "gay up the place" and i'm pretty sure there are other passing comments indicating that homosexuality is bad.Edgar Wright is hardly a conventional director. You can think of that third person narration as what Scott thinks that character is thinking, or perhaps it actually is what they are thinking, and the movie is merely "mostly" from his perspective. But how else would you make sense of all the crazy fights and such, if they are not the product of an imagination? Without them, it's still largely a movie based in reality. You don't see anyone other than the exes flying around and punching people through walls, do you? They all gained powers through aspects of themselves that made them a threat to his relationship with Ramona. That seems like a strong metaphor to me. The third person narration only strengthens my arguement. That voice had no in-movie body, so it's little different than a guy ringing the bell for a prize fight in a dream. He has a narrarator for his story. That is not unique.
@AgentJ: you're just wrong. we're not seeing the world through his eyes. the movie follows scott, yes. he's the main character, yes. but this is not scott pilgrim's story. it's a story about scott pilgrim. there's a difference and the explicit third-person narration makes it clear that he's not the one telling the story. if it was from scott's perspective, the movie wouldn't have had a third-person narrator (that wasn't scott) telling the audience that the breakup he mentions at the party wasn't mutual like he says it is. the filmmakers' hands are all over the film in all of the unique visual stuff. it's never indicated to the audience that we're seeing it this way because only scott is. we're shown a fantastic world, but we're supposed to suspend our disbelief and understand that this is what everyone in the world of the movie is seeing. people other than scott comment on the absurdity of their world throughout the movie and there's no indication that this is purely subjective to scott. you're wrong, dude. there's absolutely no room for interpretation on this particular issue. seriously. the sexism/homophobia/quality of the film in general...that's all up for debate, but the movie is most assuredly not from scott's perspective. it's from the filmmakers' perspective and it's narrated from the third person throughout the entire film. i think it's pretty obvious if you think about it. and no, i really think the characters are flat. just because they remind you of real people you've met doesn't mean they're not. "
IThe first thing I admitted when I joined this thread that the characters could have used more development. I'm not saying the characters couldn't have been deeper. My point was that the movie is not mysognistic; it's more likely drawing from real-world inspirations when making characters like Knives and the roomate, and it's disappointing that you jump right towards biggotry instead.
First things first: I liked the film. No, I loved the film.
With that being said, criticizing the writing in Scott Pilgrim is like criticizing the linework of a child's drawing. It's just not that sorta film. It's not trying to be the next Manhattan, it's not trying to win any Oscars; it's just trying to say that you have to fight for what you love, and I think Edgar Wright emphasized this point pretty well.
@AgentJ: i don't know how else to explain that you're wrong. it's told from a third-person perspective, not scott's. the fights weren't scott's fantasies, they were part of a fantastical world that he and the other characters were in. again, all of the characters are aware of this fantastic violence. at the end, knives shows up and fights without scott or ramona expecting her. i think that punches a big hole in your theory.
"Edgar Wright [not being] a conventional director" doesn't mean his films told from a third-person perspective aren't told from a third-person perspective. i don't know what else to say to you. it's blindingly obvious that through all of the ways the story is told that it's entirely told from the third-person. there's nothing to indicate that any character in the film is the narrator. in The Big Lebowski, though it's largely a typical third-person narrative in the way it's shot and otherwise constructed, you can easily interpret that it's a story being told by the cowboy character (whose name, if he had one, i don't remember). scott pilgrim actually refers to itself as a film all the time with the non-character voice-over and the little pop-up nametags. scott pilgrim is just as much a fictional character as anybody else in the world of the film and there's literally nothing in the film to indicate that he's narrating it. nothing.
" @EVO: a movie's a movie, dude. sorry. ultimately movies (ones like this one, at least) are supposed to tell stories and i thought it was a poorly written one. the visuals were engaging and it was well-made, but the movie they set out to make never would've been one i thought was good (unless it was significantly longer to give characters more depth).How many times do I have to use the word "Metaphor"? The fact that Knives shows up would be a metaphor for her confronting him while he's talking to Ramona and the last Ex. You seem determined to not see from this point of view. Do you just hate that you didn't think of this, and feel like if you had you wouldn't have graded it so harshly? Are you just stubborn?
@AgentJ: i don't know how else to explain that you're wrong. it's told from a third-person perspective, not scott's. the fights weren't scott's fantasies, they were part of a fantastical world that he and the other characters were in. again, all of the characters are aware of this fantastic violence. at the end, knives shows up and fights without scott or ramona expecting her. i think that punches a big hole in your theory. "Edgar Wright [not being] a conventional director" doesn't mean his films told from a third-person perspective aren't told from a third-person perspective. i don't know what else to say to you. it's blindingly obvious that through all of the ways the story is told that it's entirely told from the third-person. there's nothing to indicate that any character in the film is the narrator. in The Big Lebowski, though it's largely a typical third-person narrative in the way it's shot and otherwise constructed, you can easily interpret that it's a story being told by the cowboy character (whose name, if he had one, i don't remember). scott pilgrim actually refers to itself as a film all the time with the non-character voice-over and the little pop-up nametags. scott pilgrim is just as much a fictional character as anybody else in the world of the film and there's literally nothing in the film to indicate that he's narrating it. nothing. "
" @Immuniity: first of all, realize that i'm a lot less likely to take your comments seriously at all if you end them by telling me to stop being a baby. you're projecting your own anger onto me. i'd bet a lot of money that you're way more upset about this discussion than i am. chill out. we're talking about a movie, not an emerging police state. second, you're wrong: the game references aren't integral to the movie or characters at all. that's the problem. all of the video game stuff was so disposable. like i said, "down right fierce" is a video game joke that doesn't make sense without the video game reference. scott pilgrim vs the world would make just as much sense as a poor romantic comedy without any of the video game references. that's my whole point. the video game stuff is superficial and pandering. LOL THAT GUY TOTALLY HAS A NINTENDO DS LIKE A GUY WHO PLAYS GAMES LIKE ME...and he's also a totally inconsequential, uninteresting character. the characters were so flat and the script was so uninspired that it doesn't matter if they were playing video games, indie rock, shakespeare in the park, or beer pong. none of them had interesting motivations and the video game stuff simply wasn't that clever. it was mostly just "lol remember this thing?" and little creativity past that. again, robot chicken: the movie in that regard. i don't care if people had fun watching the movie. they're allowed to. i'm just saying that it's not a well-written movie and, yes, people are being tricked into thinking it's a good movie because it references things they believe they have some fondness for. asking the audience if they remember something old to make them giggle isn't criminal, it's just not very skillful. remember: we're only talking about the movie. i've been told that the comics do a much better job of making the video game stuff a lot more meaningful. i'm borrowing some of the books from a friend tomorrow, so we'll see. "
I wasnt projecting my own anger onto you, i was calling you a bitch. I am upset because its ridiculous to make such a whiny little comment and then try to defend it with 'its just my opinion' or 'stop getting mad, oh man you so mad!'.
The way you argue makes it sound like unless a person plays sports 24/7 and lives as a professional athlete any reference he makes to sport is 'disposable'. It wouldnt make 'more' sense with less video game references given that the entire basis of the world is, as i've said, to be like a video game.
Granted you can say 'well they could just change 7 evil ex to something less like boss fights, get rid of coins, items, 1 ups and all video game references' but then you are arguing about something completely different. You are the only person that feels like its 'pandering' when its just what it is, it isnt trying to make some superfical attempt to impress you. It just creates a story with characters and a setting you will find fun if you play video games (and even if you only dabble).
I dont understand this next part, you compain that they dont even play video games earlier, then when one of them does you just disregard it and minimize it like it no longer matters. Some guy playing a DS isn't a joke, it isn't put there to impress you, its some guy simply playing a DS becuase that character likes to play a DS. If some guy was sitting down reading a comic would you instantly assume hes doing it to be cool and trying to impress you with his vast comic book knowledge? This sounds incredibly self centered.
I'm going to insult you again, because you are such an easy target, by calling you a crying baby that can't accept something nice without assuming its an attempt to exploit you. Take a nice treat as just that, dont assume its something trying to pander to you.
@Immuniity: if you don't want to accept that the video game stuff is inconsequential to the meat (or lack thereof) of the story, that's fine. if you want to keep arguing about it, though, you'll have to come up with an argument better than "no it isn't, bitch."
I guess I don't understand how simplicity excuses stereotypes. This certainly wouldn't be used as an explanation if it were a racial stereotype." First things first: I liked the film. No, I loved the film.
With that being said, criticizing the writing in Scott Pilgrim is like criticizing the linework of a child's drawing. It's just not that sorta film. It's not trying to be the next Manhattan, it's not trying to win any Oscars; it's just trying to say that you have to fight for what you love, and I think Edgar Wright emphasized this point pretty well. "
"@Immuniity: if you don't want to accept that the video game stuff is inconsequential to the meat (or lack thereof) of the story, that's fine. if you want to keep arguing about it, though, you'll have to come up with an argument better than "no it isn't, bitch." "But i've given you plenty of examples as to why you're wrong. Its all well and good to just hand-wave me away, but you need to actually refute my points and read my entire post. You can't simply say 'you're wrong im right' and not feel you need to explain yourself.
To think that what i wrote can be summed up with 'no it isn't bitch' is a gross, insulting simplification of not only me but the work you are trying to critical analyze.
Heres the part where i would counter what you said and we've move the debate along but alas, you wrote nothing. You didn't strengthen your point , you simply said 'listen, im right and your wrong' on one hand then on the other hand crituqe me for writing (paraphrased, naturally) 'listen, im right and your wrong'. ..which i didn't do.
Its all well and good for you to have a point, but when you put your fingers in your ears and to simply write off every counter comment with something as brash as 'no, im right' it really makes your argument seem weaker then it is.
"I'm going to insult you again, because you are such an easy target, by calling you a crying baby that can't accept something nice without assuming its an attempt to exploit you. Take a nice treat as just that, dont assume its something trying to pander to you." -> This is why you don't deserve a reply. Whatever points you could make can rightfully be ignored due to childish ad hominem remarks like that.
And to those who don't seem to get it, the point raised by the thread is to consider a cultural product such as Scott Pilgrim from a different, critical perspective. Its (potentially stereotypical) representations might not affect you personally but should concern you morally and intellectually - of course you are free to disagree with the review, but that discrimination is a fundamental problem in Western society still is the ABC of our present media reality. The notion of "hardening up" is lol-worthy. It's not being 'hard' (oh my, stereotypical masculinity), it's being ignorant.
for the record: borrowed the series of books from a friend of mine. only read the first chapter of the first book, but i'm already so optimistic that it's leaps and bounds better than the film. the stupid "what do you play?" "uh...zelda." joke is totally a creation of the movie. in the same scene in the comic, the character answers, "heh, nothing. i just live here."
" @EVO said:Please underline where I wrote about stereotypes. Oh, wait, I didn't.I guess I don't understand how simplicity excuses stereotypes. This certainly wouldn't be used as an explanation if it were a racial stereotype. "" First things first: I liked the film. No, I loved the film.
With that being said, criticizing the writing in Scott Pilgrim is like criticizing the linework of a child's drawing. It's just not that sorta film. It's not trying to be the next Manhattan, it's not trying to win any Oscars; it's just trying to say that you have to fight for what you love, and I think Edgar Wright emphasized this point pretty well. "
Scott Pilgrim is essentially an action movie. Sure, there's the underlying love triangle and whatnot but when so much of the running time is filled with fight sequences, you have to just sit back and enjoy the ride.
i hate to bump, but i think it's relevant enough of a thought to do so:
i'm about 1.5 books into the series. i'm really enjoying it. the humor works much better (though i don't think it's all great), ramona is infinitely more likeable, and the video game stuff feels so much more appropriate. after beating the second boyfriend, scott has an item box pop-in in front of him and it turns out to be a skateboard that boosts some stats. scott complains that he didn't train in skateboard proficiency in 5th grade and the skateboard poofs out of existence.
that's a solid video game gag. "what do you play? "uh...zelda" isn't (and that dumb joke isn't in the books). scott's obsession with games (and, also, his own ego) actually comes through in the books. he plays tony hawk to train for the second ex-boyfriend. of course. his friends comment on his air juggle in the first fight as he builds up a personal-best huge-ass combo a la MvC2. great! totally solid video game references/jokes.
i think it was a mistake to try to commit scott pilgrim to film. i don't think the books are sublime (not yet, at least...who knows what'll happen in the rest of the series), but i think they're a lot of fun and avoid nearly all of the issues i had with the film. the characters are just way better-developed and, again, ramona is so much more likeable.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment