'Scott Pilgrim' arrives on DVD and Blu-ray with a new cover... will it help?
Plus check out the cover Edgar Wright says you'll wish was real
This was the theatrical poster for 'Scott Pilgrim Vs The World,' but you won't see this image on the cover of the US release on DVD and Blu-ray.
I've been doing this a long time, and I can honestly say I've rarely seen a studio work harder to get a film in front of an audience than Universal did with "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World."
I've also rarely seen a film land with the sort of box-office indifference in the face of generally glowing reactions that "Scott Pilgrim" did, and no matter how many conversations I've had with people about what happened, I haven't heard one good theory on why it failed to connect. The film's tests all went well, people who saw it seemed to enjoy it, word of mouth was strong, reviews were great... and no one went.
I have a strong suspicion that "Pilgrim" is the sort of film that is going to build an audience slowly and surely on home video, and in a few years, people are going to wish they'd seen the film in the theater in the first place. This is the best film to tank this hard since "The Iron Giant," and I knew in '99 that one would find its audience, too.
Part of the push on home video evidently involves a redesigned bit of key art, and today when Team HitFix got together for lunch, we were talking about whether or not this might work to encourage people to give the film a chance. I'll say this... at least the new piece of key art puts the cast front and center. I hate photoshop movie posters, and I miss the heyday of paintings as one-sheets, but this cover has more to do with the movie than the original poster image did... don't you think?
Be honest... in an age where the actual physical video store is on the wane, does the cover matter anymore? Do you guys ever take a chance on a film just because you see a cover you like? And has a redesigned piece of key art ever convinced you to take a chance on something on home video that you skipped in the theater?
Recently, Edgar Wright blogged a fan-created alternate Blu-ray cover for the movie, and when I sent the link to our own Greg Ellwood today, he responded, "That should be the cover of the Criterion Collection edition":
I agree. So awesome.
"Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" arrives on DVD and Blu-ray November 9, 2010.
Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.
Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.
Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.
Become a fan of HitFix on Facebook.
You can e-mail me at drew@hitfix.com or follow me on Twitter, where I'm DrewAtHitFix.
News From Our Partners
-
Fiery 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Scene Hurt The Most: Ouch!
How Far Will 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Boldly Go At Box Office?
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Secret Behind The Mystery Villain
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
-
Kendall Schmidt of Big Time Rush Loses $7,000 Worth of Gifts for Fans [Video]
Kanye West to Drop New Album 'Yeezus' on June 18
Justin Bieber + Selena Gomez Will Sit Together at 2013 Billboard Music Awards
-
Beyonce Pregnant Again? Sources Confirm 'Epic' Star Is Carrying Baby No. 2
'Hangover 3' Red Band Trailer: Take a Walk Down a NSFW Memory Lane (VIDEO)
Why 'Man of Steel' Didn't Use 'Superman' in the Title
-
The Wrap Up: Remember 'The Office' With the Ultimate Blooper Reel
The Sims 3: Island Paradise's Producer Walkthrough Shows Us the Finer Points of Tropical Life
'Man of Steel' Featurette: Reinventing Superman
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Three: Cheers for the young stars of The Selfish Giant, jeers for the new films by Hirokazu Kore-eda and Arnaud Desplechin
Hear This: Destroy This Place shows how press releases can get it right
Watch This: With Beavis And Butt-head Do America, Mike Judge skewered the idiocy of cinematic adventures
-
The 'Doctors' Unite
'We Are Men' In 4 Words
MTV Legend Recalls Heavy Metal Frontman's Anti-Gay T-Shirt Controversy
-
Weekly Ketchup: Will Smith to Star in Wild Bunch Remake?
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
The director's next film promises to be packed with talentSunday, May 19, 2013
-
This is one you'll want to watch as soon as you've seen the movieFriday, May 17, 2013
-
Plus we look back at a more spirited encounter with the comic actorThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The Channing Tatum/Mila Kunis science-fiction action movie is shooting nowThursday, May 16, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupThat Werewolf Guy
October 7, 2010 at 4:24AM EST Reply to CommentIt's ironic that SCOTT PILGRIM tanked so hard while THE SOCIAL NETWORK turned out to be successful. I'm mot trying to diss SOCIAL NETWORK or say it's a bad movie, but PILGRIM was the one that everybody seemed to be very excited about, while despite it was directed by David Fincher, written by Aaron Sorkin and already receiving glowing reviews while it was just in script stadium, nobody was really interested in watching "that Facebook movie".
Confused I dont really know what you are talking about here. Social Network has nothing to do with Scott Pilgrim. If you heard about the movie, and thought, "duhhh I hate facebook, this will suck" then it shows you to be a little narrowminded. When you say "nobody" im guessing you mean yourself. The beauty of film is that it can be about just about anything and make it interesting. The caliber of folk attached to SN made it stand out as something to take notice of.
October 7, 2010 at 7:29AM ESTIts an oxymoron for you to say that the script was recieving rave reviews, and no one cared about it. What about the ravers?
As for SP, it rocks.
That Werewolf Guy @Confused: No, these movies don't really have anything to do with each other, but like I said, Scott Pilgrim was something that everybody seemed to be very excited about. The release of its first trailer was something like the popcultural event of the month and it seemed like a sure bet that it will be the #1 movie on its release weekend. But then...bomb.
October 7, 2010 at 11:02AM ESTThe Social Network on the other hand had lots of positive buzz either, but the first teaser left people disappointed and head scratching, not to mention that after all, doesn't matter how great the script was, it was "just" a movie about a guy who created a teenboppin' website that turned out to be a success. But he is not really a person of public interest. Before the movie was released, most people didn't even know his name! It's just not a story that has a huge appeal, not to mention that "Facebook - The movie" became a cultural punchline as soon as it was announced. A buddy of mine is the most shameless Sorkin-fanboy I know and even he wanted to wait till it hits DVD. Nobody doubted that this movie will turn out great, but it just had very little commercial appeal, especially compared to Scott Pilgrim, which looked like a huge fun romp!
Pilgrim was predicted to be the big hit of the late summer, while Network was at best predicted to become another oscar winning box office flop.
It seems like you think I'm saying that Fincher's movie doesn't deserve its success, which is completely wrong. I'm glad it's a success! We can all agree that it's a good thing when a great movie opens at #1, I just got no idea how it happened, because Scott Pilgrim, another great movie with the same, maybe even higher amount of unbelievable positive reviews, BUT also a higher audience appeal because of its action, humor and FX filled nature bombed!
October 8, 2010 at 9:05PM ESTPlayhouse
October 7, 2010 at 4:28AM EST Reply to CommentI'm not sure the new art speaks much better to what the movie is about. Much as I love the original poster art, this would probably have given people a better sense of what kind of movie it was.
And, yeah, though I'm big on cover art, I can't remember the last time a piece convinced me to check out something I'd passed on. Probably when I was still going to video stores, which was ages ago.
Love the fan-created cover. Fits in not only with the movie but with the game they made.
Justin
October 7, 2010 at 4:44AM EST Reply to CommentHi Drew... Surely the reason lies squarely on the casting of Michael Cera... I'm sure if you look back you're bound to remember ALOT of unhappy people when this decision was made... and I'm sure as hell sure Universal figured 'The Cera Factor' was a big one in selling the film, as he was basically nixed from the international trailers we got down here in NZ. He's B.O. poison, people just didn't want to see a Michael Cera movie. Shame really.
October 7, 2010 at 5:17AM EST Reply to CommentI don't the Cera is the main problem, at least not here in the States. American audiences generally don't respond well to movies that are this highly stylized, in the same way that they didn't want to see Grindhouse when it was released. Movies like this will play well in the cities on the coasts but not in the burbs or the flyover country.
Romoehlio
October 7, 2010 at 6:00AM EST Reply to CommentIts this years Speed Racer.
Obvously good but hated for some kind of reason...
DefRef >"Speed Racer: Obviously terrible and hated for good reason."
October 7, 2010 at 8:28AM ESTFTFYT
Stormshadow4life I'd have to agree with you there. I skipped Speed Racer in the theater, mostly because it looked retarded....but when it came to BluRay, I rented it and loved it.
October 7, 2010 at 8:36AM ESTNow Scott Pilgrim, I actually was one of the 3 people that saw it in the theater, and while it didn't blow me away, I did enjoy it. However, the movie has been growing fonder with memory, and I have a feeling it will only get better each time I watch it (I plan to purchase).
Romoehlio
October 7, 2010 at 6:02AM EST Reply to CommentOh, and I second the Criterion cover!
Nocturnal Emission
October 7, 2010 at 7:31AM EST Reply to CommentCome on, Drew! Self-indulgent pap should never find an audience. A retro 8-bit game was the only adaptation of the comic that was commercially justifiable, and you know it.
alphabet Self-indulgent movies can be some of the best! Making movies just for other people is hackish...
October 7, 2010 at 11:28AM EST
October 8, 2010 at 2:02PM ESTWhiteKnight
October 7, 2010 at 8:36AM EST Reply to CommentIt's not THAT redesigned....
Just a little edit to the international theatrical poster, which can be found here: http://www.impawards.com/2010/scott_pilgrim_vs_the_world_ver9.html
DefRef Holy cow! WTF didn't they use that in the USA? The copy explains the movie's premise! See my post below for amplification.
October 7, 2010 at 12:36PM ESTDefRef
October 7, 2010 at 8:52AM EST Reply to CommentThe theatrical movie poster should end the career of whoever approved the campaign because it fails on nearly every aspect of communicating what the movie is about. As good as the movie's trailers were, the one-sheet was the inverse. Here's why:
* THE MOVIE stars Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a young couple who has to fight 7 evil exes. There is a heavy vintage videogame aesthetic to the proceedings.
* THE DVD ART has: the stars (note not having Cera's name anywhere); seven fierce-looking people; an 8-bit background; Cera looks ready to fight with a FLAMING SWORD while the girl looks coquettish. Someone looks at that poster while walking thru the megaplex and knows that the guy with a sword is Scott, he's probably fighting for the girl, the people up top are the enemies, and there's some 8-bit style. Very nice.
* THE ONE-SHEET has a faceless guy playing a bass while smoky title text issues from it and a meaningless slogan - "An epic of epic epicness." (Because "A movie of moving movieness" tested poorly?) - lies beneath. Is it about a struggling musician? Who is the star? This doesn't even allow the four people who like Cera to know he's in a movie. The only worse design would've been a closeup of his Plumtree t-shirt.
Even the most mediocre one-sheet with floating heads and Trajan ("The Movie Font"®) text probably communicates more about the movie than the SPVTW one-sheet. That someone got paid to produce that campaign while some amateur probably whipped up that "Criterion cover" in an hour while waiting for his Caprica season set torrent to finish downloading makes me question the amount of justice in this world.
October 10, 2010 at 10:25PM ESTDryden
October 7, 2010 at 10:28AM EST Reply to CommentI liked the movie. I didn't love it (I'm not a web journalist trying to be friends with Edgar Wright), but I wish it had done better. I'd like to see more attempts at high-energy stylized films like these, hopefully where the pieces all come together. I agree with DefRef on why the marketing failed.
Circumvrent
October 7, 2010 at 10:40AM EST Reply to CommentScott Pilgrim failed financial for the same reason Serenity failed financially - Universal gave away the store with a ton of free screenings to its core audience, which in turn gave them no incentive to go out and see it again when it was actually released.
October 8, 2010 at 8:57PM ESTFastbak
October 7, 2010 at 10:49AM EST Reply to CommentI saw the movie and liked it a lot . I agree the movie poster didn't really sell the movie well and the DVD/Blu Ray cover more appealing. SCOTT PILGRIM will find a bigger audience the way a lot of movies that weren't . By frequent airplay on TV. I can see kids watching and loving it when it plays on cable.
Qaravala
October 7, 2010 at 11:36AM EST Reply to CommentBox art has certainly made me PASS on a movie. I'm thinking specifically of Pontypool. Terrible box art; fantastic movie.
nick_r
October 7, 2010 at 11:58AM EST Reply to CommentIt didn't connect with me. I loved the trailer, was intrigued by the cast and the storyline, and had advance tickets for opening night as soon as I could get them... but the movie really didn't deliver on the level I was hoping. Maybe some of it had to do with the fact that I found Scott to be an entirely unlikable protagonist who deserved every shitty thing that happened to him, or maybe it had to do with the way the trailer sold the film as balls-to-the-wall action even though the actual action represented a very small percentage of the film. I wouldn't say it was a complete misfire, because there were certainly fun moments littered throughout, and a good number of funny lines, but as an entire piece I didn't think it added up to much.
Sorry
October 7, 2010 at 2:40PM EST Reply to CommentI loved Scott pilgrim - saw it twice & will be buying it on DVD. (Not Blu Ray) The poster, while does little to nothing to sell the movie, is attractive. As someone who knew who Scott Pilgrim was already, I like the US sheet, but have to agree it does nothing to sell the film to the masses. This would have worked better as a teaser in that regard. I don't see the poster as being the main selling point, however. The non-fans would be learning about this from trailers and TV mostly, I assume, and the ads did the job teaching audiences what the film was about. This film is going to become a classic. It's funny & charming, has great music and imaginative action, is well-paced and leaves me wanting more. Why didn't it do well? Was it because it didn't promise lots of teen sex and bathroom humor? Was it because most Americans aren't comic book geeks and us geeks thought this was a sure thing? Not entirely sure - but I am positive that Scott Pilgrim is a "good" movie. Not everyone will like it, but it's well made - the writing, the cast, the effects, the direction - everything is spot on.
I. S.
October 7, 2010 at 8:22PM EST Reply to CommentThe USA one-sheet has this inherent awkwardness: showing the star without showing his face! Looks like Universal knew Cera was the problem long before it hit cinemas. Wright has to take some blame because he was behind the casting (which was otherwise extraordinary) all the way.
EastRidge6
October 7, 2010 at 9:30PM EST Reply to CommentI think that "Scott Pilgrim" will find its audience on DVD/Blu Ray fairly quickly. I saw it for a second time at a discount theater with a full house. I'm willing to bet that most of that audience was only there because it was playing at the discount theater. But they really got into it.
I don't think that there is any one major reason why the movie failed at the box office. But the people who love it, love it - and not just "friends of Edgar Wright," either. I don't know Wright, I doubt I'll ever meet him, and still enjoyed it.
curtj5
October 8, 2010 at 12:01AM EST Reply to CommentIt had nothing to do with the marketing. The target audience was very small. Girls don't like videogames. Especially vintage videogames. They don't like Speed Racer, either. An oldschool cartoon with a similar style to this movie. Not all male action fans like cheeky hipster-wit action comedies. They like straightforward action movies like The Expendables. Scott Pilgrim is a much better movie than The Expendables, but the average action fan likes cheesy, dumb action movies. Mainstream, semi-low brow comedy, straightforward action with macho action stars. Not a dorky kid with a guitar and a bunch of pac-man special effect. O.K. actually, there were some REALLY cool special effects and scenes they could have put in the trailer actually, that might have helped it a little. But overall the vocal hipster nerd geek internet crowd that hyped this movie is a very small movie goer demographic.
Ben
October 8, 2010 at 4:13AM EST Reply to CommentI think the film tanked because it genuinely wasn't the second coming that online film journos would have you believe.
It was a good film. Sometimes good films don't do very well. It's no mass crime that it didn't do Avatar's business.
SchlongChong
October 8, 2010 at 9:02AM EST Reply to CommentThe general public can't connect to auteur filmmaking, it's as simple as that... They don't have that kind of creative thought process.. They don't want to think outside of the box.. They prefer to be sheltered in and be guided step by step like little kids on a school bus.. Our education system is a complete disaster..
October 8, 2010 at 2:08PM ESTksb36
October 8, 2010 at 8:51PM EST Reply to CommentGod, I hated this movie. Who was it supposed to appeal to? People who want to see a twee man-child not get his just desserts? Failed, deserved to fail.
Erin
October 10, 2010 at 12:25PM EST Reply to CommentI think the release date played a big part in why the film didn't perform at the box office well. The target audience was mostly college students and the film was released late in the summer, just as most college students are in the process of going back to school. I feel that had the movie been release either a month sooner (in the middle of summer), or a month later (once everyone was settled in at school), it would have done much better in theaters.
That said, everyone I know who had time to see it absolutely loved it. I can't wait to get my Blu-ray copy.
John
October 20, 2010 at 9:02PM EST Reply to CommentI'm thinking of pre-ordering it on Amazon, getting all my friends together, and having a Pilgrim DVD Party. My friend and I call ourselves "Ramona" and "Scott" in its honor. I AM IN "LESBIANS" WITH THIS FILM!!!