Export thread

Serious question here: If Michael Bay had directed Scott Pilgrim vs. The World do you think it would have had a $50 million dollar opening weekend? I was thinking about all the positive buzz surrounding Scott Pilgrim. It received glowing reviews and many of the fans of the comic were very happy with Edgar Wright's loyalty to the book. Despite all the positive buzz it had a dismal opening weekend. Much like Kick Ass, you had charater depth, solid storyline, great acting, fantastic pacing. I know all the criticism that surrounds a Michael Bay production, one dimensional characters, convoluted story, huge plot gaps and lots and lots of explosions. Despite the criticism Bay delivers where it matters most in Hollywood-money. So I ask, if Michael Bay had directed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World would it have been a Hollywood hit?

BLASPHEMER!

Fortunately it's not a movie needing money, because there won't be a sequel, and Edgar Wright will keep on working anyway, so the cult following it will gain, however long that takes, will be just fine. Age like wine.

I haven't seen it yet either--tomorrow morning, fun times.

Unfortunately, it probably would do better financially. It would be an awful movie though. But, and here's the weird thing, I don't think it would be because of the name Michael Bay vs the name Edgar Wright. I think it would be the bad casting decisions of inexplicably popular "actors" that would result that would make that financial difference.

But AmE and escushion are both right. Edgar Wright's movies are less mainstream, quick to gain a cult following, and do well on DVD because they are great for repeat viewing (I swear to you without even exaggeration that I have seen Shaun of the Dead atleast 2 dozen times and Hot Fuzz is catching up).

And as an interesting side note: I initially read escushion's name as "erection" and had to do a double take.

The financial success or failure of the film, as always, has nothing to do with the quality of the thing. I had my misgivings about the movie, but it's wildly inventive and ridiculously well-made. However, it's really unsurprising that it didn't make any money because it's so unique and it speaks to a very specific mindset. It was pretty much an impossible film to market because its appeal is so very niche. And really, it's pointless to speculate on whether Bay would've made this movie a hit because the movie he would've made would have been so far removed from the movie that we got that you wouldn't be able to recognize it.

90% of movie goers probably don't give a fuck who directed any given movie.

Gusto said:

90% of movie goers probably don't give a fuck who directed any given movie.

Click to expand...

This. But, 90% of people do care about th epretty people IN FRONT of the camera. Its the same reason actors are given far more time at the Oscars than directors, producers, composers and editors.
Honestly, I think outside of my film savvy group of friends, if I were to ask most people out on the street about Michael Bay, the majority of them wouldn't know who HE was either. But if he had this movie he'd cast friggin Megan Fox as Ramona Flowers or something, and that guy from Twilight as Scott Pilgrim and fill the seats, get absolutely destroyed critically, and take his billion dollar cheque to the bank laughing and not giving a shit.

I'm glad the source material got to be adapted by someone who cares about making a good movie.

When names get big enough, people are aware of them, and I mean more than just the film-savvy. Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, M Night Shamyalmayan, Peter Jackson. You know, people who plaster their name all over their shit.

I am kinda iffy on this. Michael Bay? The film "may" make more money because of the big name in the film, but I think it would have made a horrible film IMO. I would less likely to see a movie by M. Night cause his last few movies were very "meh" for me.

I believe the movie is excellent and will have cult following. I feel that the promoters (whoever responsible) picked a bad time to release the movie since it goes up against big actors named movies

Chibibar said:

I am kinda iffy on this. Michael Bay? The film "may" make more money because of the big name in the film, but I think it would have made a horrible film IMO. I would less likely to see a movie by M. Night cause his last few movies were very "meh" for me.

Click to expand...

I think that's the group consensus right there. More money, worse film. Like anything Michael Bay touches, compared to how it would've been under a talented director.

Seeing Scott Pilgrim in an hour and 15 minutes. Wooohoooo! I've been waiting many months for this .

escushion;430052][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

I am kinda iffy on this. Michael Bay? The film "may" make more money because of the big name in the film, but I think it would have made a horrible film IMO. I would less likely to see a movie by M. Night cause his last few movies were very "meh" for me.

Click to expand...

I think that's the group consensus right there. More money, worse film. Like anything Michael Bay touches, compared to how it would've been under a talented director.

Seeing Scott Pilgrim in an hour and 15 minutes. Wooohoooo! I've been waiting many months for this .[/QUOTE]

I hope you enjoy it as much as we did

checkeredhat;430016][QUOTE=Gusto said:

90% of movie goers probably don't give a fuck who directed any given movie.

Click to expand...

This. But, 90% of people do care about th epretty people IN FRONT of the camera.
But if he had this movie he'd cast friggin Megan Fox as Ramona Flowers or something.
I'm glad the source material got to be adapted by someone who cares about making a good movie.[/QUOTE]

This is what I was leaning toward. A Michael Bay Scott Pilgrim movie would have had Shia LaBeouf as Scott Pilgrim, Megan Fox as Romona, who is an international spy being hunted by 7 evil cyborg killing machines, each bigger and badder than the previous. It would begin with Romona dismantling the cyborgs and modifying their weapons for Scott and eventually Scott would have a full battle armor suit to fight the final battle with a 20 foot cyborg with the fate of the world hanging on it. Reviews would be horrible but masses would line up to see it as opposed to the current film that has stellar reviews and the masses not caring about it. I do think it'll find a market on DVD and when the masses finally get around to seeing it they will love it. But the message it sends to Hollywood producers is to go the Michael Bay route.

Loved it.

Amorous Eyes;430106][QUOTE=escushion said:

More money, worse film. Like anything Michael Bay touches, compared to how it would've been under a talented director.

Click to expand...

Hey! I still love Transformers 1 & 2! [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure whether to take this seriously because you included the second one .

But either way, I'm sure someone else could've done better.

I think they could've been better shot and edited. For all I know that's not entirely Michael Bay's fault, but I'm pretty sure it partly is.

Amorous Eyes;430106][QUOTE=escushion said:

More money, worse film. Like anything Michael Bay touches, compared to how it would've been under a talented director.

Click to expand...

Hey! I still love Transformers 1 & 2! [/QUOTE]

I am a fan of the first Transformers as well. This scene alone secured my love of the movie.

Spielberg, Cameron, Stallone, Petersen, and Emmerich would have undoubtedly by any metric made a better movie with "Transformers" than Michael Bay.

To answer the original question:

It would have been a horrible piece of tripe and made a ton of money.

I think you knew that before you asked the question though.

I imagine it'd look something like this:



:biggrin: