I’m several years older than you and loved it, as did my son in high school and his female friends. I’m hoping someone will provide comments from a gay perspective, because while I found it very gay-positive, I thought sometimes gayness was the joke.

I loved the movie, but yeah, after seeing the movie with friends had to implore them to go read the books because there’s so much more depth to them.  And also, yeah… I think Cera wasn’t quite the right choice.  He does inept dork pretty well, which is part of Scott’s character, but Scott’s also a cocky, brash fighter (and kind of a dick).  We didn’t get much of that from Michael Cera.

Also I wanted more Kim Pine, but I pretty much always, in any context, want more Kim Pine.  She got really good moments in volumes 5 and 6 that, for obvious reasons, weren’t in the movie at all, and for that alone I think people should read the books if they liked the movie.

Also, although it’s pretty tangential, when I listened to the podcast the other day my thought for band names was “What a Terrible Night to Rock a Curse.”  It’s artsy!  And even more nonsensical than the original weird translation from Castlevania II!

Hooray! I was waiting for this post, as I’d hoped you’d seen it, since apparently very few of us did. America’s loss, as always.

The movie might not pass the Bechdel test, but the number and variety of female characters was highly unusual for a mainstream movie.

And I couldn’t put my finger on where I had seen Roxy before, but she’s the actor who plays Ann on Arrested Development! George Michael v. badass lesbian Ann is pretty amusing.

I feel like my enjoyment of the movie was tainted by my love of the comics.  Don’t get me wrong - I thought the movie was hilarious and awesome, but they had to cut out some of my favorite things to get through the entire storyline.  Ramona’s emotional arc is gone.  I really, really liked Envy in the comics, and she basically got reduced to the ex.  Exes 4, 5, and 6 got the shaft, too.  The movie did a good job of capturing the feel of the books, though, and I thought the visual effects and music/sound design were very strong.

When Scott called Stacey (I wanted more Anna Kendrick!), I was hoping for the “Scott didn’t realize all Second City exteriors don’t lead to the same interior joke.  Also, I want that Zero shirt.

I was thinking about the Bechdel test, and I thought this movie just baaaarely passed.  Knives and her friend talked about Ramona, and Knives and Julie tried to talk to Envy about her band/clothes/blog and stuff.

I’m glad to have your recommendation. I haven’t read the books, and was a bit icked out by the way the trailers implied it was All About The Dude, with a MPDG as prize at the end of his hero’s journey. Knowing that there are actual female human beings as characters makes me a lot more likely to go see it.

And I will definitely read the books. They sound awesome.

I will say that another aspect of the book I like is you get the impression that Scott and Ramona, being young, may not be together forever or anything.  But they’ve grown enough as people that if they should part, no one is going to be anyone’s evil ex, but they’ll be able to move on maturely.

I’m glad to have your recommendation. I haven’t read the books, and was a bit icked out by the way the trailers implied it was All About The Dude, with a MPDG as prize at the end of his hero’s journey.

I know there was one feminist critique in a review that made it sound like the movie was approving of how 7 evil exes go to control Ramona’s future dating/sex life. Maybe it seems that way if you only see the movie, but that’s not really the intent at all.

Also, I regretting seeing things taken out from the comic, but the movie’s struggling at only 2 hours long. At 6 hours long, the audience would be even smaller. Maybe for the blu-ray?

Quick, somebody come and post something about how adults shouldn’t read and/or watch things like Scott Pilgrim but focus on Tolstoy instead..

@10, you may be thinking of this review: http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2010/08/081110scott_pilgrim_vs_the_world_rev.html

I like the reviewer, actually, but disagreed with her about Scott Pilgrim.  I do wonder if that’s entirely because I’ve read the books, though, and if without that context the movie can be interpreted as an anti-feminist celebration of beat-em-ups to control the love life of a largely passive woman.

I’ve read the books but not seen the movie yet (only one theatre in Vancouver! What is this douchebaggery?). In response to NoJoy, I think the books try really hard to be post-gay, but don’t quite achieve that. I think a comic that is better at being post-gay is Questionable Content, where maybe there are a few cracks here or there, but largely people don’t care and don’t constantly mention it in a ‘hey, cool, look at the token here’ way. I got irritated with how much Lee O’Malley labeled Wallace gay or unnecessarily reminded us of Wallace’s gayness. I won’t discuss this further because of potentially spoiling the books. Anyway, the moral is, this movie needs a wider release in Vancouver, so the one theatre can stop selling out screenings.

I haven’t had the chance to see it yet, I was going to see it tonight but my wife got a stomach bug or something so we postponed it. But from everything I’m reading, as someone who loved the books, (and as an aside I love Edgar Wright as well, and I’ll see anything he writes/directs) I thought and still think from reading opinions, that the story is basically unfilmable. It’s amazing that they did what they did, but at the end of the day, it’s still one of those unfilmable things that can’t have everything come through in the translation.

The theatre take is pretty bad so far, but it’s going to be one of those cult movies that have huge legs in terms of DVD sales.

One of the fan theories I read on TV tropes Wiki is that the film is entirely from Scott’s POV, which is why everyone else’s personalities are skewed towards shallow to nonexistent, because they are Scott’s interpretations of those poeple and he’s not very observant and easily distracted by other things.

Still, gloriously fun and smart in ways that only Edgar Wright can be.

I loved the books and the movie even though, at 53, I’m not the target audience.  On the other hand, I wasn’t the oldest person in the audience.

Spot-on review, Amanda! I thought it was a great film; it was fun and all the 90s references were entertaining and very evocative of what it was like growing up in the 90s with the video games and the alternative music scene.  I did miss the depth of the books and the themes of memory, loss, and growing up (although that was touched on in the film). I definitely don’t agree with the reviewers who say that the film is sexist, but I do wish that more attention had been paid to the female characters and that the closure that Kim/Scott and Envy/Scott achieve at the end of the books made it into the film.

I thought the fact that Scott gains the “sword of self-respect” in the film (and not the “sword of understanding” of the book) was really telling of the reading Edgar Wright was bringing to the character and the storyline. Which is fine, but I think we’ve been seeing a lot of the “shy, sensitive nerdy boy gains self respect and fights for himself” trope. It’s a very male-centric (and self-centered) view which always makes the female character into the MPDG who inspires the male character to stand up for himself. And I think this reading actually conflicts with how Scott’s growth is presented in the books, where he actually stops being so self-centered. He’s able to get out of his own head and really be present for Kim and Envy and hear the stories of their relationships with him that they’ve been trying to tell him all along. That’s a lot more grown-up and much more satisfying than the resolution we got in the film, where it’s simply all about Scott gaining self-respect and fighting “for” Ramona. I understand that Bryan Lee O’Malley provided Edgar Wright with a pretty rough outline of how he was going to wrap up the books, so I’m willing to give the film a pass on that. I’d like to believe that if Book 6 of the comic was available when the filming was taking place, some of the Envy and Kim storylines would’ve made it in.

I’m more or less happy with Michael Cera’s performance, but I do agree that the nerdiness of the character was over-emphasized and his confidence, self-centeredness, and cockiness were largely dropped. I thought that Cera had an opportunity here to step out of his typecasting and his comfort zone, but either chose not to, or wasn’t allowed to, which was a bit of a bummer. In my head, I was actually seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Scott, but I tend to cast him in a lot of roles. He’s my go-to nerdy indie kid.

But, overall I would recommend the film without reservation. I thought it was great fun and the filmmaking itself was inventive and irreverent. I’m bummed that it flopped, but then again it was a supremely dumb decision to open what’s essentially an autumn date movie for hipsters (I’m simplifying and I carry my hipster card with pride!) in the summer against an action film. It might actually have more staying power and I’m sure it’ll do great in DVD and soundtrack sales. But I am bummed because now all the grumpy “get off my lawn you shallow video-game-playing, indie-music-listening nerds and hipsters” reviewers can continue their assault on fun with newfound smugness.

I haven’t seen the movie or read the books, but everyone I know is raving about them. I’m going to assume that they’re not creepy, but the central premise seems off-putting: Why is he fighting her evil exes? I.e., why do her evil exes exert power over her and why does she need him to get rid of them? As a metaphor for romantic love, it seems flawed/unrealistic. I’m not judging art I haven’t seen, I’m just curious because none of the reviews have tackled that issue so far. Thoughts?

I feel there was more of the cocky, brash Scott in the script than there was in Cera’s portrayal. The fact that Scott is this utterly awesome fighter is accepted without surprise, and his friends all talk about him as this famous ladykiller. I haven’t read the comics (though I will now), but I’m not surprised to hear that he was more confident and charming in them. He kind of has to be for the story to work.

I haven’t seen the movie or read the books, but everyone I know is raving about them. I’m going to assume that they’re not creepy, but the central premise seems off-putting: Why is he fighting her evil exes? I.e., why do her evil exes exert power over her and why does she need him to get rid of them? As a metaphor for romantic love, it seems flawed/unrealistic. I’m not judging art I haven’t seen, I’m just curious because none of the reviews have tackled that issue so far. Thoughts?

In literal terms, her exes start showing up in Toronto trying to kill Scott.  Scott’s caught off-guard (because he didn’t read the menacing emails sent by the first member of the League), and Ramona explains that, yeah, she has a league of evil exes that Scott has to defeat to date her.

It’s much more that her seven evil exes are being dicks to Ramona (and Scott by necessity) than that Ramona can’t take care of herself.  And in five of the seven exes’ cases (the last five, at that), the fight is much more about Scott learning something important than about physically manhandling the ex in question.  Defeating the evil exes isn’t really a metaphor for romantic love, it’s more a metaphor for coming to term with the consequences of the past, and learning from your mistakes.

I think, anyway.  Others who’ve read the comics may disagree.

Another place the actress playing Roxy has been: Mae Whitman is the voice for Katara in Avatar: The Last Airbender (the series, not the crappy M Night white washing that passes for a movie.)

The evil exes are a just a really overt symbol for Ramona’s inability to quit beating herself up over the past and move on.  Not to spoil the books, but it’s critical for Ramona to fight the last one herself, with Scott’s help.

I haven’t seen the movie or read the books, but everyone I know is raving about them. I’m going to assume that they’re not creepy, but the central premise seems off-putting: Why is he fighting her evil exes? I.e., why do her evil exes exert power over her and why does she need him to get rid of them? As a metaphor for romantic love, it seems flawed/unrealistic. I’m not judging art I haven’t seen, I’m just curious because none of the reviews have tackled that issue so far. Thoughts?

It’s interesting. The exes don’t really exert much power at ALL over her, in retrospect. It’s not like she’s kept away from Scott, and kidnapped, or has a chastity belt slapped on her. They basically continue to date, but there’s an understanding that the exes will keep coming, and that Scott needs to fight them. Scott isn’t always willing, but his friends and the exes themselves push him into doing it, as it’s his responsibility.

She also doesn’t need him to get rid of them. Ramona can take care of herself. It’s just understood that Scott needs to get rid of them. Kind of hard to explain, in a way.

It’s hard to blame the movie for not having the depth of soul of the books because it’s not a function of sexism or bad writing so much as just an issue of time.  Once you work in the seven evil exes

Yeah, so hard.  You know, considering the precise number of evil exes to be a more indispensable aspect of the story than the personalities and depth of the (female) characters is what you call a “deliberate choice.”  It’s only hard to blame them for making that choice if you don’t acknowledge it as one in the first place.

Only four or five evil exes would have left just a teeny bit of space for some more women talking, you know?  But I guess it’s all in what you consider a crucial element and what you consider expendable in an adaptation.  What’s a woman’s character development compared to the really important and magical nature of the number seven?

Of course, it still has more female characters than any other twelve recent movies I could name, and that’s not nothing.  But it’s not so very much.

Only four or five evil exes would have left just a teeny bit of space for some more women talking, you know?  But I guess it’s all in what you consider a crucial element and what you consider expendable in an adaptation.  What’s a woman’s character development compared to the really important and magical nature of the number seven?

Well, which ex would you cut? The one who’s dating Scott’s ex, the talented musician superstar Envy Adams? Or the fourth ex, who’s a lesbian? Five and six are combined and are already pretty much given short shrift, basically becoming just a transitional bit to the final confrontation. Cutting seven shortchanges Ramona’s backstory, and cutting one or two means re-structuring the entire plot.

I lament the loss of Lisa Miller and more Kim Pine just as much as anyone, but it’s not quite a simplistic “we can’t cut out any of the men, so cut the women instead” calculus. I’m not saying more effort couldn’t have been tried, or rewriting and restructuring isn’t possible, but it would take some doing.

I think the movie could have cut Lucas Lee, honestly, although I’m not sure it would have benefitted - he was easily the funniest ex, and the fight was really fun to watch as well.  But it’s all pretty superfluous, and doesn’t develop much besides the fact that “defeat” doesn’t mean “kill.”  And they skipped the “longsword proficiency in grade five” joke!

Still, I’m not sure how much good it would have done.  Scott doesn’t really mature much over the course of the movie either, no more than Ramona or Knives I think.  An extra ten or fifteen minutes would probably have still left their arcs relatively flat.  And definitely wouldn’t have given time to, say, introduce Lisa Miller as a character, or fully flesh out the complexities between Scott and Kim, and the chemistry between Kim and Ramona (and Kim and Lisa, and man Kim is just really shippable).

I think the movie could have cut Lucas Lee, honestly, although I’m not sure it would have benefitted - he was easily the funniest ex, and the fight was really fun to watch as well.

Yeah, that’s the only one I could think to cut as well, and that does a detriment to the comedy. Not enough time saved to be enough to pull out the subplots to really let the female characters shine.

Maybe they should have just aimed for a four hour movie. I mean, release was already fairly limited, and it couldn’t possibly have bombed harder, right?

I am totally lame and had no idea of what any of this Scott Pilgrim business was a year ago.  I probably could’ve used the general message when I was a teenager, but unfortunately I have less than no love for indie-rock (the socio-musical dispensation that brought an end to pop-culture history), which due to my background I tend to regard as the officially approved music of the insufferably supercilious post-punk hip consensus rather than the officially approved music of outcasts and loners (a group in which I could certainly name myself, but then everybody does these days).  Still, it’s always been hard for me to hear talk about “choosing to be happy”.  If it were that easy, anyone could do it.

I do, however, have the Scott Pilgrim bass.  (Same red-burst paint job, even.)  OTOH, I have it because it’s the bass Chris Squire of Yes plays, which again gives me negative street-cred.

Not that this contributes to the discussion, but I had to get it off my chest.  The button does say “Blaspheme”, after all…

@elena in #17: “I understand that Bryan Lee O’Malley provided Edgar Wright with a pretty rough outline of how he was going to wrap up the books, so I’m willing to give the film a pass on that. I’d like to believe that if Book 6 of the comic was available when the filming was taking place, some of the Envy and Kim storylines would’ve made it in.”

It was rough enough that the original ending of the movie had Scott ending up with Knives in the end (and apparently this version was shown to preview audiences months ago.) The final fight certainly looks like it’s leading to that resolution, though I think the ending that they went with works out better for Knives—she’s finally over her Scott obsession for one thing and has probably realized Wallace was right when he told her she was too good for Scott. Though that bit of character development happens far too quickly.

The movies are a good companion piece to the books and I appreciate the changes it made to deal with the constraint of doing this as a movie. Essentially, they distilled it to being about Scott’s journey from self-importance to self-awareness. The key switch at the end when Scott wins not because he loves Ramona but because he respects himself was a brilliant. The film’s pace made it impossible to imbue the relationship with the satisfying layers that were developed in the book. Most movies would just pretend those layers were there through assertion. And in much of the film, it seems like this is what they are doing. Then at the end they switch that out on us and acknowledge that neither Ramona or Scott love each yet. They’d just like to find out off they do. Though it wasn’t nearly as poignant as in the books, the non-confrontation with nega-Scott still served the purpose of saying that that this journey is about Scott learning to deal with himself.

I really loved the [adult swim] adaptation of Scott’s courtship of Kim. It shows how great the books could work as a huge animated adaptation, though I fear such a project may never happen. I think that might be the best hypothetical adaptation of the series. I get the sense that losing exes could shorten it, but really Lucas is the only expendable one since the twins were just relegated to transition fluff as it is. But Lucas works too well on too many levels to lose. I like that out of all the exes he seems the least into this. That came across more in the book, but they kept bits in the film. His resentment towards Ramona is real, sure, but you don’t get the sense that he’s nearly as into this as the others. I think that’s a good bit of business to keep in. And Chris Evans dug into that role for pure camp. I kind of thought I’d be disappointed since the character is such an unvailed analogue for Jason Lee in the books and they obviously went for generic movie star for the film, but they took that and ran making him the prototypical generic movie star, the pure essence of generic movie star. Its quickly clear that rather than being lazy, there were thrilling committing to the cliche in the most over-the-top way possible. If anything, the consistent theme of the film is thrilling over-commitment.

I haven’t read the comics, though I loved the movie so much I picked up the whole series. Even without having any previous exposure to the comics, I think calling it sexist is a horrible misreading. It’s stated explicitly that Scott isn’t fighting to “win” Ramona. I think, much like some critics dismissal of Tarantino, this really comes down to some people seeming to be entirely incapable of reading things in any but the most dully literal way possible.

BTW, since I haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere I have to say I think Sex Bob-omb is, beyond being an amusing videogame joke, actually an interesting image. A bob-omb wanders aimlessly only to self destruct when someone touches it.

Also a quick note for #1: I liked that for once the “snarky gay friend” actually got some. So many movies will have that character and then pretend that being gay is about *fashion*, here we have a kind of sloppy dude who has sex with men.

and if without that context the movie can be interpreted as an anti-feminist celebration of beat-em-ups to control the love life of a largely passive woman

That’s absolutely the vibe I’m getting from even the glowingly positive reviews, which is enough to put me off even without the fact that I’m too goddamn old to groove on hipster chic, much less be thrilled at yet another “shallow young guy overcomes his personal flaws to win the Pussy Trophy at the end” movie.

re the Bechdel Test, that’s really not about whether any individual movie is/is not feminist. It’s a commentary on how depressingly sexist and anti-female Hollywood is. When movie after movie after movie can’t even manage to fit in two female characters talking to each other about something other than the man? Well, the problem is likely not random chance.

I mean, it’s this low of a bar: You know that scene in the action movie where the two security guards at the Evil Outpost are lazing around talking about football before Our Hero busts in? If those guards were women, the Bechdel Test is met. If Our Hero is waiting nervously at an airline ticket counter behind a female passenger who is talking to a female customer service rep about a flight delay, the test is met.

The point is that movies are so freaking sexist that even that level is beyond most screenwriters. There’s one female in the movie who talks, and she’s there to fuck the hero.

That’s absolutely the vibe I’m getting from even the glowingly positive reviews, which is enough to put me off even without the fact that I’m too goddamn old to groove on hipster chic, much less be thrilled at yet another “shallow young guy overcomes his personal flaws to win the Pussy Trophy at the end” movie.

I guess if you want to reduce the movie to that formulation despite all actual facts and evidence to the contrary, there’s nothing that can be said to change that belief.

Ramona is not a prize to be “won”. She chooses to stay with Scott and leave Scott and return to Scott and leave Scott again as she sees fit. They date and presumably have sex all throughout the series, as the exes appear gradually over the course of the story to flesh out both Scott and Ramona’s stories and give depth and context to the relationship. There’s a feminist discussion to be had about Scott Pilgrim, but the 30-second TV ad impression of the movie version isn’t particularly constructive.

A quick google search for “Ramona Flowers cosplay” is instructive in showing how many young women actually relate to this character, who is the central heart and soul of the story, when often Scott serves as comic relief, or plays the asshole.

But the perfect is again the enemy of the good, and a movie with actual human female characters loses to a giant testosterone besotted action flick with a bunch of aging white Republican old men beating the shit out of foreigners. I wonder what message Hollywood will take from this.

Thanks for posting this Amanda, I was really keen to hear your thoughts and I found the OTI podcast to be a tough listen (esp. annoying when one of the guys kept talking over you- grr!) I will definitely read the comic with this recommendation. Even when I was watching the film, which I loved, I did find it really annoying that Ramona didn’t join the final fight. It really ‘felt wrong’ to me. Apart from that I laughed pretty much the whole way through and loved every minute- great stuff!

Loved the movie.  It was an astoundingly intelligent meditation on love and dating.

I.e., why do her evil exes exert power over her and why does she need him to get rid of them?

All of our exes contribute to who we currently are, and in that sense exert power over us which fades over time.  Or at least that power should fade over time.  I think in the movie* the evil exes are sad examples of people who were unwilling or unable to move on from their relationship with Ramona.  Implicitly, if they had moved on they would not have joined the League of Evil Exes.  I also presume that Ramona had other exes who had moved on and did not join the League.

She also tells Scott at one point when he is being particularly dickish that his is “just another future evil ex.”  I understood this in part to mean that if he continues to cling and grasp to the extent that he must control her then he too will be unable to move on and pull the same crap as the others.

I also don’t think Ramona needs Scott to get rid of them, just that if he chooses to go out with her he will have to deal with them.  The evil exes will come on their own volition, so Scott’s choice is to face them or call things off with Ramona. 

I could write a dissertation on the layers of meaning concerning the evil exes, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

*Haven’t read the books, so I can’t say anything about them.

I have yet to see the movie—it does not open here in Sweden until september. However, I’ve read the books and enjoy them enormously. I think Scott’s journey from asshole to human being was, in the end, a satisfying one. And yes, I worried that the Ramona of the book, with her need to run away, might have her character gutted by the movie.

I look forward to the flick with interest.

But the perfect is again the enemy of the good, and a movie with actual human female characters loses to a giant testosterone besotted action flick with a bunch of aging white Republican old men beating the shit out of foreigners.

Hey now. Jet Li is in that film so it’s not ALL aging white Republicans.

But seriously, fuck The Expendables. I’m betting that movie will have a good showing in theater then get forgotten forever and collect dust in DVD collections everywhere with the million of other films like it, but Scott Pilgrim is going to get a decent cult following (and possibly create a million visually similar clones in the next few years, a la Matrix, due to the really cool new effects they peppered all over the flick). People were laughing out loud something like 50% of the movie, easily. They applauded at the end. The only movie I’ve seen with that kind of reaction in the past, oh, five years was The Trotsky (and my guess is that one wouldn’t be as uproariously funny to anyone who doesn’t live in Montreal).

BTW, even with that caveat I strongly recommend everyone to find a way to see The Trotsky if it gets released in your corner of the universe. It’s a fine piece of Canadian cinema.

Seebach @34: the fact that young women identify with a character doesn’t automagically mean a movie is feminist and progressive, “well but The Expendables sucks” is not much of a recommendation, and if the male lead fights battles in order to be able to permanently win the girlfriend, then yes, he’s getting the Pussy Trophy.

None of which is to say this is an awful, sexist film. I haven’t seen it, I have no opinion as to whether it does or does not match up to the descriptions provided by people who saw it and liked it, or whether it is an objectively “good” movie. My only opinion on this is that the reviews and descriptions of the film I have seen in reviews written by people who saw it and liked it are that a) it creeps me out, in ways that other posters like sophonisba pointed out, and b) whether or not it is the most awesome and progressive film ever, it probably is not the sort of movie that is to my taste, as I am neither young nor hip.

But I will say that when your response is that the film rocked and anyone who doesn’t embrace that truth unseen is just too close-minded and afraid to face facts? Yeah, and I think I’ll decide whether to see Twilight based on the opinion of a screaming 12-year-old in a Team Jacob T-shirt. and the film can’t possibly raise any issues for feminists since girls identify with Bella.

But I will say that when your response is that the film rocked and anyone who doesn’t embrace that truth unseen is just too close-minded and afraid to face facts? Yeah, and I think I’ll decide whether to see Twilight based on the opinion of a screaming 12-year-old in a Team Jacob T-shirt. and the film can’t possibly raise any issues for feminists since girls identify with Bella.

No, that’s not my argument. I can see the film not appealing to a lot of people, and there are a lot of legitimate reasons why.

And all sorts of feminist issues can be raised. For one, if Ramona and the female characters are really the soul of the series, why aren’t they the main characters? Why is it still necessary to have a male lead to draw in the male readers? There’s a whole discussion on women in comics and comics by women out there, and it’s very interesting. If you can be bothered, there are whole sites!

http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/

It’s, in fact, not necessary to make up reasons based off of half-formed impressions based on ad clips and second-hand testimony! If you can’t be bothered to do research, don’t pretend like your opinion is equally valid as those who have actually gone through, done the work, and come up with problems with the movie.

Seebach @41, I would also add that if you read interviews with Bryan Lee O’Malley, a lot of the character of Scott Pilgrim is based on details of his life (being in a band, being a gamer, having a gay roommate, meeting and falling in love with an American girl, etc.). It seems natural to me that an author who is doing that sort of autobiographical work would make a character based on him or herself the main character, even if the “soul” of the work is someone else. The problem is that women aren’t really allowed to make this sort of autobiographical work without being dismissed as “chick lit” or “chick flicks.” I’m more concerned with the gatekeeping that prevents women from creating comics, music, books, or films than I am with some dude making his main character a male.

Mythago @40, I’m more or less cool with critiquing something you haven’t seen. We make value judgments without in-depth research all the time. I’ve never eaten a McDonald’s burger but I know it’s not healthy. I’ve never seen The Passion of the Christ, but I know it’s anti-semitic torture porn. But I wouldn’t jump in somewhere and claim that my opinions on whether fast food beef is healthy or if there’s anti-semitism in The Passion are as well-researched and valid as someone who’s done the work. I really don’t see how a bunch of people who saw the movie telling you that “no, your conclusions based on a 1-minute promo clip don’t quite work but there are those other issues and here’s why” are in any way comparable to a “screaming 12-year old.” Not to mention that this image brings up just another nasty stereotype aimed at devaluing young girls’ participation in culture.

@7 I thought it passed the Bechdel test, too. Though yes, just barely. But iirc, Knives talked to both Julie and Envy about non-guy-related subjects. Her comments to Envy about her blog I remembered in particular, and liked that she was shown as being an obviously big fan of a female musician. In fact, Envy was shown with lots of fans of both genders, which was great.

Seebach @41, it’s ironic that somebody complaining I didn’t do enough research managed to skip reading most of my comment.

elena @42, I’m sorry, but I seem to have fallen into a parallel universe where “reviews written by people who actually liked the movie” and “1-minute promo clip” are in fact synonymous in English. And are you really arguing that questioning a female character as a role model denies young women’s agency? I’m pretty sure “you’re not allowed to question any choice females make” is a trope I’ve heard from antifeminists before.

I’m certainly willing to listen to people who say “I saw the movie and I believe it does have X but not Y problems.” Duh, that’s what was in the commentary I repeatedly stated I have reviewed.

And my own hipster oldness has nothing to do with the quality or sexism of the movie.

The Bechdel test is binary- it either passes the third test or it doesn’t. Given the conversation between Knives and Envy, it’s hard to say that it doesn’t.

Seebach @41, it’s ironic that somebody complaining I didn’t do enough research managed to skip reading most of my comment.

Not really. I did read all of your comment, I just dismissed it and decided to share my opinion on what my first impressions of what I THOUGHT you would say were.

I’m not going to comment on what you really said, because you’re entitled to your own opinion, but I’m in no way obligated to rethink my initial impressions of your reply.

And I just wanted to derail the discussion to share this comment of mine.

Mythago @44 no, I’m arguing that your use of the phrase “screaming 12-year olds” was questionable language. I’d wager our opinions on Twilight are actually similar; my issue was with the language you used, as it’s the kind of discourse that is used to dismiss and marginalize girls who participate in fandom. “Screaming fangirls,” etc. I really haven’t said anything about your age or hipster status, as I don’t know anything about either (and if I did, it wouldn’t be relevant).

I’m actually trying to think of a conversation between two characters that wasn’t about Scott/with Scott I think that other than the conversation between Knives and Envy, there was only one, and that was Wallace hitting on Stacy’s boyfriend. Basically this whole film is about the main character, until the last fight scene, which makes sense because Scott is incredibly self absorbed. I think that this was a deliberate choice on the behalf of the director and I don’t think it was in anyway a sexist choice.

I loved the books, and I generally enjoyed the movie, but I really really hated the ending. SPOILERS follow, for both books and movie. I thought it was a good idea to bring knives into the climax, because the film puts a lot more weight on the love triangle. But giving her the team-up with Scott to defeat Gideon makes a hash of the central metaphor and denies Ramona any meaningful role in coming to terms with her own past. There is just no reason why Scott should be synching up perfectly with Knives at the end unless he’s going to end up with her.

I know eh? And I have no idea what Knives’ motivation for fighting Gideon would be.

Heres a little back story on production for those who are still following. 

Optioned by book one or two,  the script was made by book 3 or 4.  O’Malley and Wright were in close contact, but O’Malley has said previously, even he didnt know exactly how it would turn out.  The final book was finished ridiculously recently,  like in late June and had a rush printing to be out by July 20th.  The film came out 3 weeks later.  This means principle photography wrapped about the time O’Malley was 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through drawing the last book?  Maybe?  This simultaneous printing/ releasing film means the film really cant draw on that last 2 books, unfortunately.

The movie WAS supposed to end with knives and scott.  Who knows how the books were to end.  Wright re-shot (making knives the Ducky Dale) 

Heres my take:  Knives and Scott fight great together!  But theyre not a great couple, as theres inequality.  Edgar was obviously setting up that fight fight revolution scene early in the movie.  I personally love seeing scott and knives fight,  but didnt want him to end with her.  Scott ending with Ramona feels a little weird too (as MEW was acting to end alone…)

I think the character that got the shortest straw was Roxy,  who was a great character, and just comes across as angry for no reason.  But I think Wright put a lot of good spin on the work by making more of the jokes about it being a film.  I have to see it again,  but not for the ending.  I think the fight with the twins was better in the film,  but maybe hollow as book 5 had a lot of depth. 

and I Love SEX-BOB-OMB!