PDA

View Full Version : Meeting #33: Scott Pilgrim VS Kick-Ass



JohnLees
Wednesday, September 01, 2010, 04:53 PM
Greetings Clubbers! In today’s meeting, we’ll be discussing two of the year’s best movies: Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim VS the World. As some pundits and naysayers talk about the superhero bubble being about to burst and this golden age of comic book movies being set to come to an abrupt end, these films showed that there was still plenty of fresh approaches to the comic book movie, even to the superhero movie. So today we’ll be looking at the process of adaptation from comic to film for each movie, and the implication of adapting a comic story that is not yet completed, as was the case for both Kick-Ass and the Scott Pilgrim series.




We’ll start with Kick-Ass, both the Matthew Vaughn movie and the comic written by Mark Millar and drawn by John Romita, Jr. And really, the two come together, and always have, which generated quite a bit of controversy amongst comic fans. The film rights to Kick-Ass were sold before the first issue was even published, the film script and the comic were written simultaneously, and due to massive delays on the comic, the film had already wrapped shooting and was almost ready for the release by the time the final issue of the comic series finally hit stands. I for one had problems with the comic, both on principle due to this strange dynamic, and in the actual execution of the comic itself.

Here’s the strange thing. Back when I bought the first issue of Kick-Ass the comic, I didn’t really like it. Yet I loved Kick-Ass the movie. Why is that? Yes, there are some differences in the comic and the film, that I’ll get to later, but basically it’s the same story. Why does it, in my opinion at least, work much better in one medium than it does in the other? The answer that occurs to me probably lies at the core of my problems with the comic: Kick-Ass was never really created to be a comic. From its very inception, it existed as a blueprint for a film adaptation, and so was never allowed to simply exist as a comic book in of itself. When something is created with an adaptation into another medium already set up, already in the creator’s mind at the point where he is writing the story, then its existence in its original medium is rendered incomplete, a stepping stone in the story’s progress onto its final destination in that other medium. Kick-Ass reads like a comic that wants to be a movie. So of course the movie is going to be better – film is where the story was, from the very beginning, intended to be told. And this intention carries through into the comic itself. At times the comic reads like storyboards for a movie, using cinematic layouts and employing the storytelling language of cinema in its plot construction.

But this is not a case where my problems with Kick-Ass stem from it simply existing itself. I found the content of the comic itself to be pretty objectionable. Millar is someone who has written good stories, and as a fellow Scotsman making it big in the comic industry of course I have to respect him, but Kick-Ass the comic just wasn’t for me. The marketing of the book was all about the shock and spectacle – from the front cover declaration on the first issue that it was “the greatest superhero book of all time” to the very title of the series. And that wham-bam in your face shock value is plastered throughout the book – by the fourth page we have a teenager getting jump leads attached to his testicles and electrocuted. But when a book is constantly trying to shock you – often for no apparent reason other than to shock – it soon loses its effect, and just becomes distancing.

I felt similarly about the swearing, too. Now, I’m no prude when it comes to bad language. And I think the movie brilliantly handled lines like “I’m just ****ing with you, daddy” or “okay you ****s, let’s see what you can do” as they came from the mouth of Hit-Girl. When one character is so foul-mouthed – particularly someone you’d never expect, like a little girl – it can be a great comedic device. But when it feels like every character is constantly swearing, all the time, once again it has a numbing effect. I counted 23 ****s in the first chapter alone – which works out at roughly a **** a page. And it isn’t something like The Thick of It or Deadwood where the bad language really contributes to the aesthetic of the story – instead more often than not it just feels out of place and cartoonish.

But most alienating of all for me was the extreme cynicism of the story, how unlikeable just about everyone is, and how just about every potential dramatic moment is deflated and turned into a joke. In the Kick-Ass movie, I liked the awkward friendship/one-sided romance between Dave and Katie, and how perfectly pitched that subtle first miscommunication was where Katie waves at her friend and Dave waves back thinking she’s waving at him, leading to cringing embarrassment for poor Dave that is a totally relatable high school experience. Now compare that to the pair’s first encounter on page 6 of the comic, where Katie says this in response to Dave’s conversation-starter of “Oh hey Katie. I didn’t know you were a member,” of the club he’s standing outside:


Yes you did, you ****ing stalker. You watched my dad drop us off. The guy on the door said you’ve been hanging around for three goddamn hours… Get the **** away from me, you loser. And quit staring at me in class. You’re giving me the creeps.


To me, this moment misfires on several levels. First, you lose all the subtlety and familiarity of the miscommunication in the movie for an aforementioned barrage of obscenity. Next, this paints Katie as a really horrible, bratty character who we instantly dislike, and have no emotional investment in actually seeing Dave get it together with. Then, perhaps worst of all, it also makes us dislike Dave himself, our main character. In the narration afterwards, he says he’s “just an ordinary guy”. But by hanging around outside a club for hours waiting for this girl, he is indeed acting creepy, and so we become alienated from him too and he feels like less of a Peter Parker style Everyman (or is that Everyboy?). Continuing with this thread of Dave and Katie, in the film and the comic respectively, in the film Dave’s emotional confession to Katie that he is not gay and is in fact in love with her leads to Katie realizing she loves him too and the two becoming a couple. In the comic, it leads to Katie berating and rejecting him, getting her boyfriend to beat him up, then sending pictures to Dave’s phone of her performing oral sex on her boyfriend to taunt him. Like I said, it’s all very cynical: the story makes it very difficult to build any kind of emotional investment in its characters, then does stuff like this to mock those who do, as if to say, “How silly of you to care.”

The worst example of this, for me, and probably the most glaring example of the film getting something right that the comic got wrong, is in the depiction of Big Daddy. Now, whatever way you spin it, whatever medium the story is told, the idea of a father training his daughter to become a murderous vigilante is a difficult one to swallow, with the inevitable response from us readers/viewers that this is irresponsible parenting at best, and emotional (and even physical) abuse at worst. But at least in the film, we get a portrait of a man who has been genuinely wronged by Frank D’Amico, someone whose life has been ruined, someone who blames the death of his wife on D’Amico and his crew and who thus has a genuine motive for revenge against him. From this perspective, aided by stellar performances from Nicholas Cage and young Chloe Moretz, the fantasy personas of Big Daddy and Hit-Girl feel like Macready’s attempt to protect the daughter from the grim reality of his obsession with vengeance by turning it into a game – almost like a superhero-themed Life is Beautiful. And with Big Daddy dying in his daughter’s arms, and Mindy returning to base to find the two cups of hot chocolate with marshmallows they were going to drink together when they got home, Matthew Vaughn manages to glean a note of genuine tragedy from Big Daddy’s violent death.

Not so with the comic. The Big Daddy of the comic is simply a comic geek who fantasized about becoming a superhero in the style of The Punisher, and so lied to his daughter about them becoming crime-fighters to avenge her mother’s death in order for them to be able to live a more “exciting” life. From this perspective, the irresponsible parenting and emotional abuse are juvenile and pointless, a little girl’s life screwed up solely because of her father’s selfish desire for adventure. Rather than gaining empathy for the pair, we are emotionally distanced from both. It’s all treated like a big joke, and far from being tragic, in the comics Big Daddy’s abrupt, undignified death is like a punchline.

And this all ties back to the simultaneous development of the comic and the film. Kick-Ass the comic is plotted and structured like a blueprint for Kick-Ass the film, but it’s an imperfect blueprint. And so it feels less like a comic than a rough first draft of the Kick-Ass screenplay – only with gorgeous art from John Romita, Jr. – with Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman refining the script for use in the film. As a result, for me Kick-Ass is something of an odd entity for me, where despite it starting out as a comic, it feels like it’s the movie that’s the “real” Kick-Ass, that cinema is the medium where this story works best. This reminds me of a quote by Mark Millar from a March 29th interview with UK newspaper The Guardian, on the changing nature of comic-to-film adaptation:


The trouble is that the superhero movies so far – and I don't want to be unfair to them because I think generally they have been good – have been made two generations after they've been created, and in Superman's case three generations after they've been created. So if the technology had existed to make a Fantastic Four movie in 1966 it would have been amazing, because you had Kennedy and the space race and all of that. But now, really, what is the Fantastic Four?

With Kick-Ass, the book's just out and now the movie's out six weeks later. And I think that's the way things are going to go now, because to go to Marvel's B and C-list characters and try to get movies out them - what's the point of that?


I think there’s an unsettling undertone to this line of thought that a comic’s value lies in its adaptability, in how effective it can become as a film. Is this “the way things are going to go now”? With comics becoming such a fertile breeding ground for film projects that comics as a medium become subjugated to cinema, with the original comic becoming like film-lite, a mere starter dish before the cinematic main course?

However, there is also a valid point in what Millar is saying here, and it touches on the crux of what we’re discussing today. As I started this column by saying, Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim VS the World are, in my opinion, two of the year’s best films. Both are based on comics published in this decade. Red, due out later this year, is also based on a comic from this decade, as was the recently released (and previously discussed) The Losers. The upcoming, highly-anticipated TV adaptation of The Walking Dead is also based on a comic series that began this decade. As we get more and more of the classic, iconic superheroes making the leap from page to screen, with less and less still waiting to be adapted, does the future of the comic book movie lie not in the glut of hasty franchise reboots lined up – Marc Webb’s Spider-Man reboot, X-Men: First Class, the recently-rumored CGI Fantastic Four – but in moving past the classic superheroes and starting to adapt these more modern comic book properties? And what could the implications of this shift be?

To answer this, let’s take a look now at Scott Pilgrim VS the World, and the six-volume comic series by Canadian cartoonist Bryan Lee O’Malley that the film is based on. First, I apologize for the limited reading list that doesn’t cover much of the Scott Pilgrim saga. My reasons for only including the first volume, Scott Pilgrim’s Precious Little Life, on the reading list were twofold. First, because I was aware of the hefty reading list lined up for the next meeting, and didn’t want to overwhelm you guys. Second, and more selfishly, I didn’t want to spoil the plot of the movie too much, so set things up so I only had to read the first volume. Sorry! However, I did love that first volume, and if you guys are interested, I’d be happy to set up a meeting discussing the other five volumes of the Scott Pilgrim series in greater depth. Let me know!

Another trait shared by the film adaptations of Kick-Ass and the Scott Pilgrim series is that the film was wrapped and about to be released in cinemas when the last installment of the comic story was released. But a key difference is that Scott Pilgrim’s Precious Little Life was first released way back in 2004, and had well established its quirky, offbeat identity as a comic book long before the gears started turning on the film adaptation. Scott Pilgrim’s Precious Little Life does employ some of the language of films in its storytelling, yes, but it also takes cues from cartoons and video games, all mixing up into a unique end product that is very much tailored for the comic book medium. As a result, whereas Kick-Ass is a case of a comic being heavy influenced by movies, Bryan Lee O’Malley crafted an identity for his Scott Pilgrim series that was so distinctive that Scott Pilgrim VS the World is a case of a movie being heavy influenced by comics.

Not only does the film perfectly replicate many panel layouts, but we even have narrative captions and sound effects popping up on-screen as they do on the comic panel. Not that this is a verbatim translation of the comics. The jump from print to screen allows for more pastiche to get rolled into the mix – take the great riff on Seinfeld, for example, or Scott Pilgrim’s daily routines and personal anxieties being narrated by Gravelly Voiceover Man. The film’s success in capturing pop-culture minutiae from across multiple mediums is probably largely due to Edgar Wright – a perfect match of a director for a project if ever there was one, given that Wright tread similar territory in his excellent UK TV series, Spaced. Scott Pilgrim VS the World is a film that simultaneously captures the spirit of the source material while exploring the new possibilities that a different medium opens up.

But while in terms of quality I’d say the films Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim VS the World are about equal, what set Scott Pilgrim’s Precious Little Life apart from Kick-Ass the comic for me was that there was a spirit there for the film to capture. The relationship between film and comic is not as symbiotic as it is with Kick-Ass. Bryan Lee O’Malley created a unique world with its own rules, meant specifically for the comic page. He wrote it, and he drew it, he created this comic book world, with no thought to a movie.

So what of this world that O’Malley has created? This is a world where Amazon delivery girls take shortcuts through people’s dreams, where bad guys can use mystical powers to summon bat-winged demon girls to their aid and burst into coins when they die, and where bands can play songs with specific note combinations that will render their entire audience unconscious “for 20-30 minutes”. All with no real explanation, and seemingly just taken for granted by the characters. Note how unsurprised everyone seems to be when Matthew Patel bursts through the roof of the Rockit club and starts trying to kill Scott:













And that’s perhaps what makes all this craziness feel so crazy, when it might not seem so unusual if it were to happen in a superhero book: a lot of it just comes out of left-field in a story that otherwise seems so grounded in the humdrum regular world. Like how explosions and car chases may be par for the course in a James Bond film, but we may have been surprised (and may have enjoyed the films more) if they turned up in the Sex and the City series. One possible explanation crops up on page 10 of Chapter 4: Ramona Come Closer:


SCOTT: Well… my last job is a really long story, filled with sighs. Maybe we can get into it in a later volume.

RAMONA: I don’t even want to talk about my last job.

SCOTT: Maybe volume three for that one.


It’s almost as if Scott Pilgrim and all the people around him are aware that they are in a comic book, and as such freely incorporate comic book elements such as supervillains and epic battles into their everyday love story when they feel the tools available to them in a regular comedy or drama are not sufficient to express the emotions they are experiencing.

Now, I don’t want to go into too much detail on the comics themselves, in case you guys do want to hold a meeting looking at the rest of the series in more depth, so I’ll steer things back towards how this relates to the movie. With Kick-Ass, you had a comic that felt rough, flawed and incomplete, like a template for the movie, and as such I said the movie felt more like the “real” Kick-Ass, with the comic simply serving to point us towards that movie. With Scott Pilgrim VS the World, I think the opposite is the case. The movie is great, but the comics are so detailed and intricate and idiosyncratic, with even minor characters having their own little tangential storylines going on, that a movie can only hope to provide a sampler of the world Bryan Lee O’Malley created. Scott Pilgrim VS the World is great, but the “real” Scott Pilgrim remains in the comics. The movie is crafted in a way that rather than feeling like it’s the refined, superior end product to the comic work in progress, instead we are pointed back to the comics where we can immerse ourselves deeper in the richness of the world and learn more about these characters we glimpsed on the big screen. It’s a more circular relationship between film and comics, with the comics exciting us for the possibility of the film, but the film also pointing us back towards the comics.

To go back to Mark Millar’s predictions on the future of comic book movies, Scott Pilgrim’s Precious Little Life is a very modern comic book. While classic, iconic superheroes may have been influenced by the pulp heroes of the 20s and 30s, Scott Pilgrim is a hero influenced not only by those earlier comic book superheroes, but by video game heroes (both platform games and beat-em-ups), and by 90s slacker culture. Both Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim VS the World represent comic book movies based on new ideas, celebrations of original ideas and approaches rather than adhering to the Superhero Origin Story mould. If the relatively poor box office doesn’t dissuade film studios and they start seeking out more alternative voices from the comic book world, perhaps then filmmakers and audiences will appreciate more that comic books are a medium, not a genre, and that they can be a fertile ground for film adaptation beyond just rebooting and redoing the superhero franchises that have already been hit movies.


Meeting #34
This meeting was light on the reading front because we have a mighty pile of reading waiting for you next meeting. And all of it from the same creator – Jeff Lemire, a Canadian writer/artist who has made a name for himself on the indie scene over this decade. We’re going to take a look at his work, and identify what themes and techniques are most prominent throughout. And as Lemire find his status in the industry growing - with his own Vertigo title and now work writing within the DC Universe – what defining aspects of his early work have carried over into the mainstream?

RECOMMENDED READING

The Complete Essex County
Jeff Lemire

The Nobody
Jeff Lemire

Sweet Tooth: Out of the Deep Woods
Jeff Lemire


Meeting #35
The Killing Joke
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel
Loki

tiggerpete
Thursday, September 02, 2010, 10:36 AM
I definitely think we should cover Scott Pilgrim in its entirety, it is one of the best comic series I have read, and no coincidence, one of the nerdiest. It really is like they made a comic just for me, as the humor and the action are exactly what I like to read (plus it is damn well written)

that said, I agree that the changes made from comic to film in Kick-ass were beneficial, and without those changes, I almost despise the comic. my biggest problem is how people mistake violence and murder for heroism, my point is, casual violence against "bad" guys doesn't make you a hero, while you have to fight evil to be a hero, killing should always be a last resort, just like cops, they can kill a suspect in the line of duty, but their primary goal in fighting crime is to take the bad guys prisoner and have them face justice. I know that not everyone shares my view, but I figure killing someone is a line, if you cross it, you lose the right to call yourself a hero, unless you can prove your worth again (Barry Allen-Fash, killed reverse flash and got kicked out o the jla for it), otherwise, you are a vigilante, a criminal who fights against other criminals (i.e. the Punisher) My problem I guess is that violence is so prevalent in comics that it loses its impact, for example, Bruce Wayne dedicates his whole life to eliminating crime because of two gunshots from a botched mugging, I get the feeling that if Millar had created Batman, his parents would have been raped and murdered by a whole street gang while he was force to watch, and as a result, Batman would now rape and kill every "bad guy" he faces (purse snatchers, pick pockets, vandals, jaywalkers) mostly because its "shocking" and you can't be a "hero" without a body count. If I learned anything from Mystery Men (an underrated movie IMO) its that guns aren't a super power.

ok, my little non-sensicle rant on violence in comics is over now, on to something I love...Scott Pilgrim!

Scott Pilgrim the movie was easily the most fun I've had in A theater since Zombieland, and yet as awesome as the movie is, the books are way better, maybe its the decompressed storytelling of a 6 volume story, but the books have way more character development and backstory, the Ramona-Scott relationship is more believable, and there is just more room for comedy and action. that said, the movie makes Knives a much better character, even without her dad, and a lot of the humor works better live (at least the way the movie is edited) such as the whole Todd Ingram fight (btw, Brandon Routh is awesome, he is m favorite evil ex, or its between him and Chris Evens' Lucas Lee, both are awesome) my point is, the movie is great, and the books are greater, truly a must watch/read respectively. (disclaimer, the older you are, the less you will "get" Scott Pilgrim, it is clearly aimed at my generation of 20-something's)

tiggerpete
Monday, September 06, 2010, 11:15 AM
nobody has anything else to add?

JohnLees
Wednesday, September 08, 2010, 12:52 PM
nobody has anything else to add?

:mad::(

But thanks for your imput anyway, tiggerpete. Echoed many of my own sentiments. A good point too about how the "superheroes" in Kick-Ass don't really feel like superheroes. They where the costumes, sure, but mass murder doesn't feel all that heroic. You're right, they're really vigilantes. I think what set the movie apart from the comics, though, is that even though the murder's still there, you do get a sense of Kick-Ass learning a moral lesson about what it takes to be a hero, whereas in the comics it's like he doesn't really learn anything.

And consider a Scott Pilgrim meeting added to the lineup for the near future!

jamesfairlie
Wednesday, September 08, 2010, 01:40 PM
nobody has anything else to add?

I've not seen or read Kick Ass, but what I've seen of Kick Ass 2 in CLiNT was pretty consistent with what John said.

As for Scott Pilgrim, I think John said it all already and what he didn't, you did, so there's no need to add anything :p

wiegeabo
Monday, October 04, 2010, 04:07 AM
I finally finished the reading about a week ago. Actually, I finished Kick-Ass fairly quickly, but I decided to read all of Scott Pilgrim. Also, I haven't seen either movie yet (well, I've seen the first half of Kick-Ass), so I can't use those as a real basis.


It is with that that I must disagree with our host. I enjoyed Kick-Ass, despite it's flaws. And I went into the book expecting not to like it.

From what I've watched of the movie so far, yes there are a few things the movie did that I preferred. Things like why his dad never saw him in his costume when he was first put in the hospital. How the movie did a better job explaining how he couldn't feel pain. And how the violence was less brutal and bloody. Seriously, some of the beating in the book would have killed these people, defying the 'reality' the book exists in.

The movie also did more with character development. The book could have probably done well with two more issues. Yet, still, I enjoyed the book. I really didn't want to stop reading it. Was the violence over the top? Yes. But pretty much everything about the superhero side of the story was over the top. Isn't that sort of the point? There's a reason superheroes and supervillains don't exist in the real world. They'd get killed. Fast. And brutally. And that's what Miller shows us. He's basically saying, 'You wonder why comic books don't really happen? You think you can survive that? Well, this is what's gonna happen. What do you think now?'

How about Big Daddy's story? I like both. The movie's version is more believable, I suppose. It fits better with comic vigilante origin stories. But that's also sort of the problem. It's just so...cliche. Big Daddy is pretty much just the Punisher with a kid in a movie. Ok, it's more complex than that. Big Daddy has obviously had a psychological breakdown to do what he does, and to raise his little girl the way he does. No doubt about that. And yet, you can point to his tragedy and say, that's why he's all screwed up.

But I find the big reveal in the book to be much more interesting. Big Daddy wasn't this uber cop or whatever seeking revenge. He was just a guy who decided to live an adventurous life, bring his little girl along (potentially scaring her for life), and taking out the bad guys who, in all honesty, deserve to get taken out. Is he a hero? No. Only a vigilante. Even the movie version. But the book version gives you something to wonder about and discuss. What makes a comic nerd become Big Daddy and take his daughter along for the ride? Did he just snap for some reason? Was he tired of reading about all the crime and horrible things in the news, but figured he also needed a side-kick to watch his back. Was he completely misguided bringing Hit Girl along, or secretly brilliant in the way he taught her the vigilante business?


What of Kick Ass's civilian life? Our host mentions not liking how Katie handled the big reveal in the book. And I'll admit when I was reading that part, I was hoping she'd understand and it'd be the start of their relationship. But I'm glad it turned out the way it did. Because that's what would really happen. You tell a girl about being gay so you can be close to her, watch her try on clothes, and basically spend all your time together living a lie, and she's just going to forgive you and fall into your arms? You'd be lucky she didn't file a restraining order against you.


I could probably keep talking about about Kick Ass, but I'll stop for now and save it in case this generates any discussion. It's time to move onto Scott Pilgrim.


And now I must reveal...that I did not like Scott Pilgrim. *waits for the pitchforks and Molotov cocktails*

Now that that's out of the way...I honestly went into the book expecting to like it, if not love it. I had heard so many glowing reviews about the movie and book. Even my favorite reviewer absolutely loved the movie. So I started reading the book...and I wondered just what the hell I'd gotten myself into. It was boring, plodding, and by book two I wanted to do nothing more then punch the hell out of pretty much every character.

Now, at this point I got reassured that the books just kept getting better. So I thought, ok, I'll keep going. I figured that, if the book represented the movie well, I'd end up agreeing with another reviewer I follow. He really did not like the first 30 minutes of the movie. But, like a switch being flipped, from that point on he thought it was fantastic. So I figured it be the same for me. I didn't care for the first couple of books, but once everything gets rolling, I'll be into it.

...ugh. I'm not joking when I said I had to force myself to keep reading it. My opinion just kept going down and down. I finally found a few things I liked in the last book, or book and a half. But not nearly enough to make up for how much I disliked the rest of the story. I fear, when it comes to the movie, I'll end up like another reviewer I watch who really didn't like it at all. I hope not, but I have a feeling...


Why didn't I like Pilgrim? Two big reasons stand out for me. First, I found it long and boring. Character development is fine. But when that's all you have, scattered across not much happening, it's just...boring. Decompression was mentioned earlier. And that's fine. But this goes way beyond decompression. O’Malley could have cut out a total of an entire volume without disrupting the story. Even the action came across as mundane. And there's something really wrong when that happens. Action, no matter how brief, shouldn't be boring. But this was. I don't know if it was the fault of the rest of the story being so slow that it brought the action down with it, or the fault of the action itself (or a combination). But other than the final fight, the action did nothing for me.

The other big reason was the characters. Like I said, I wanted nothing more then to punch most of these characters in the face. I get what O’Malley was trying to do with the characters, they type of characters he was writing. They're pretty much teenagers/kids trapped in adult bodies. Too scared to grow up and have life get complicated, but too scared to stay kids and let life and the experiences of being an adult pass them by. But rather than coming off as sympathetic, I found the characters whinny, annoying, and frustrating.

My friends and I have conversations similar to those in the book. We exaggerate, and overreact, and do a lot of things the characters do. But when we do it, it's fun, and jokingly done. But in the book, they just take themselves and their lives so damn seriously.


Now, in the last book, a couple of characters redeemed themselves in my eyes. Firstly, Knives. Yeah, she annoyed me too at first. But as her story went on, I could see that she was just a little girl. She had an excuse for acting the way she did. She's only seventeen and lived a relatively sheltered life. That works. And by then end, when she goes off to college, she's matured so much that I liked her. In fact, she became one of the most mature characters in the book. Which I find awesome and odd.

Romona is another one who redeems herself greatly. Most of the time in the book, I wanted to slap her for being damn near a bitch. But by the final battle, we learn just how damaged she is, and why she kept making the same mistakes over and over. And she finally breaks free of the chains that had been holding her down. I especially liked the metaphor of Gideon ruling her head being made literal.

The minor characters were a mixed bag. I liked Wallace. He was just about the only one who had his shit together. I also changed how I felt about Kim in the last book. She realized it was time to grow up. It's hard for her to handle, but she makes the first steps and even helps Scott realize it's time for him to grow up too.


So, did I completely hate Scott Pilgrim? No, not at all. Along the way were moments I did like. Some things did make me smile and keep wanting to read. But, with the exception of the last book, those didn't happen often. I still have hope for the movie and really want to see it. As my favorite reviewer said, it was a model of having an efficient, tight, almost perfectly written script. And the pacing, from what I hear, is much faster. Pacing was a major killer for me in the book, and just fixing that issue should vastly help me enjoy the movie.

JohnLees
Thursday, October 07, 2010, 12:04 AM
Some interesting points, wiegeabo, but is it okay if I address them in the upcoming Scott Pilgrim meeting?

wiegeabo
Thursday, October 07, 2010, 03:12 AM
Right on. I'm so far behind, I still need to read for meeting 34 :(