Scott Pilgrim's Box Office Performance

(or, Joe Grunenwald & The Infinite Sadness)


So Scott Pilgrim vs. The World came out this past weekend. While I have not been talking much about it (or, really, much of anything lately) here, I have been talking about it pretty much everywhere else possible, because I'm excited. I love the graphic novels, and the movie looked awesome, and when I saw it (at a preview screening on Tuesday evening), I was not disappointed. The film is FANTASTIC. The translation of the material from page to screen is perfect, but at the same time the movie isn't hindered by an adherence to the source material (something that, save for the changed ending, I found to be one of Watchmen's big problems). The performances are strong - Michael Cera is less Michael Cera-y than he usually is, Ellen Wong is perfect as Knives Chau, and Kieran Culkin steals every scene he's in as Wallace Wells - the fight scenes are extremely entertaining, and the style of the film is unlike anything I've ever seen before.


So, naturally, it tanked. And I mean, HARD. To the tune of only making back 1/6th of its production budget in its first weekend. That sucks. That really, really sucks. And it makes me really sad.

I feel sad for Edgar Wright. Watching Scott Pilgrim, I got the feeling that Edgar Wright made exactly the movie he wanted to make. The movie is packed to the brim with pure creativity, and it flies off the screen, unable to contain itself, and it's wonderful. Wright is a fantastic director - Jennie and I watched Shaun of the Dead again this past weekend, and I'd forgotten both how funny it is and what a great zombie movie it is - and the movie is by no means a creative failure, but to see it fail so grandly from a financial standpoint is really a letdown.

I feel sad for the movie itself, because it is so entertaining and so well-done, and because not many people are probably going to see it. So I suppose I feel sad more for those people than for the movie itself. When I see something that is of such high quality as Scott Pilgrim, I want everyone to see it, because everyone should see things that are high-quality. But given this movie's poor performance, who knows how long it will be in theaters for people to see. Sure, it will enjoy a long life on DVD (where it will almost assuredly attain cult classic status), but a large portion of the population - people who would probably really enjoy it - will probably never see it. And that's depressing.

My hope for Scott Pilgrim is that it gets a lot of strong word of mouth (on that front, I'm trying to do my part) and that people go see it in the coming weeks before it disappears from theaters completely. I know I'll definitely be seeing it at least once more. If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend it. Between it and Inception, there's a nice selection of highly creative movies out there right now.


Or, I guess, if you like explosions, you could go see The Expendables. Whatever makes you happy.

This blows my mind.

When I read about this, I figured it would be mildly amusing. But no. I am not amused by this. In fact? It gives me the fucking creeps. You know I bet there were people in the audience who did not realize that that was not Neil Young. Without the video, I probably would not have known it wasn't him, either.

Bravo, Jimmy Fallon. Your second career as a Neil Young cover band awaits you.

Thanksgiving: Contributing to Obesity Since 1621

As you know, Thanksgiving is this week. And even if you didn't know it, chances are someone has told you about it. Or, even if they didn't tell you specifically about Thanksgiving, they told you about the main focus of the holiday. No, it's not being thankful for all of the good things in your life or any of that nonsense: it's food. Or, more specifically, gorging yourself on delicious, delicious food. I listen to NPR in the morning while I'm getting ready for work, and then some more while I'm on my way to work, and I heard no fewer than two stories about food this morning. The first story was about 'traditional' Thanksgiving deserts (most of which sounded disgusting, except for the skillet apple pie, which sounded amazing), and it was a pretty fun story. You can listen to that one here. The second was about how Thanksgiving is celebrated by immigrants to America. The person interviewed is the chef at a Greek restaurant in New York, and he talked about how his family would always eat Greek food at Thanksgiving, and how he has carried that tradition on with his own children and wife. His wife is Italian, and their Thanksgiving dinner is a mixture of Greek and Italian foods, and it sounds awesome. You can listen to that story here.

The idea of eating cultural food during Thanksgiving is somewhat foreign to me. For as long as I can remember Thanksgiving dinner has been the following: turkey, sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie, and other things that I can't think of at the moment, but those are the standouts in my mind. To me, those things are entwined with Thanksgiving. It's not Thanksgiving without those things, and whenever I have those things in another setting I always think of Thanksgiving (mostly the sweet potatoes and the pumpkin pie - if I thought of Thanksgiving every time I made myself a turkey sandwich, I would be thinking about Thanksgiving a lot of the time). The thought of throwing lamb and other things into the mix just seems odd. It also sort of makes me wish that my family did it, too.

What are you planning to eat this year? Regardless of what it is, happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy the delicious, delicious food.

How PUSHING DAISIES will end

Before I begin, I'd like to point out that all of this is conjecture. This is actually a theory that I came up with months ago, and Jennie can attest to that because I shared it with her and I thought I was the smartest person ever but that it wouldn't happen for a long time, because clearly PUSHING DAISIES was destined to be on the air for years and years. Sigh. Anyway, after being a few episodes on the series, we finally got caught up, and I'm convinced now more than ever that my theory will come to pass. So here it goes...

HOW PUSHING DAISIES WILL END:
- Ned's father will return and reveal that he, too, can bring things back to life by touching them
- It will be revealed that Ned died once when he was very young (perhaps at birth) and that his father brought him back to life. He later abandoned Ned because he didn't want to risk touching him and killing him again
- Ned will touch Chuck again, killing her. Ned's father will then touch her, bringing her back to life. Ned's father will then die, sacrificing himself so that Ned and Chuck can be together
- Ned and Chuck will kiss; no one will die

Also, I'm sure there'll be some stuff with Emerson and Olive in there, too, but I'm more concerned with Ned and Chuck. Emerson needs to find his daughter, and Olive needs to get over Ned (perhaps with Emerson? What an odd couple that would be). But the main conflict of the series of course stems from the fact that Ned and Chuck cannot touch, and my little theory would take care of that.

So how do I support my theory? Before the most recent episodes, I couldn't. It was pure conjecture. But after the last episode that has aired, I think I'm on pretty solid ground. The facts are these:
- Ned's father has returned. He appeared at the end of the most recent episode, and appears to be watching over Ned, even going so far as to save his and Olive's lives
- Ned's father appeared to be covered from head to toe, save for his face (naturally). I have thought from the beginning of the show that Ned and Chuck could hold hands and/or not have to worry about bumping into each other constantly if Ned would just wear long-sleeved shirts, pants, and, above all, GLOVES. We saw in a recent episode Chuck's father (whom I will come back to) grab Ned by the sleeved arm with his bare hand, and he did not die, presumably because of Ned's sleeve. So why is the fact that Ned's father wore gloves important? Because if he hadn't been wearing gloves, and he had grabbed Ned to stop him from falling, Ned would have died. According to the theory, anyway.
- Ned's father abandoned Ned at the Longville School for Boys when he was very young, and we have never seen him, not even during scenes in which Ned's mother was alive. The debate between Ned and Chuck's father is that the only way to protect Chuck is to get her as far away from Ned as possible so that the chance of their accidentally touching becomes nonexistent. I think that looking at Ned's father's abandonment of him through the lens of a father trying to protect his child provides a perfect reason for Ned's father to have abandoned him in the first place: he wanted to minimize the chance of his ever accidentally touching Ned and killing him again.

Until the remaining episodes of the series air, we won't know for sure what happens. Supposedly there's going to be some sort of closure, but I doubt it will be the amount of closure that devoted fans (read: me) will want. In the mean time, I'm comfortable with my theory. Because yes, these are the things that I think about all of the time.