“5 Reasons ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’ Tanked”
The post-mortems on Scott Pilgrim continue, this one from TheWrap:
“Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World” had everything going for it: ecstatic reviews, a long ride atop Twitter’s trending topics and a boffo buzz boost out of Comic-Con.
Moviegoers never got the memo.
But those who actually saw the day-glo love story almost universally adored it — surely a recipe for word-of-mouth business in week two. Right?
Wrong again: in its second weekend, the graphic novel-based, video game-inspired action/comedy fell to $5.2 million at the box office, a 51 percent drop from its doleful $10.6 million opening.
How could something so intrinsically good — and at $60 million, not cheaply made — go so wrong?
The article suggests five reasons:
1. Genre Confusion = Epic Marketing Fail
Universal did the best it could with a steep marketing challenge, according to multiple film marketing veterans who spoke with TheWrap.
But the film’s unique concept doesn’t easily translate to a TV trailer. Its mashup of genres — superhero adventure, romance, comedy — left Universal’s marketing team with no precedent to draw upon; they were charting new ground.
2. Comic Books Aren’t King
It’s been a rough year at the box office for second- and third-tier superhero properties. Given the dwindling takes for movies such as “Kick-Ass,” “Jonah Hex,” and now “Scott Pilgrim,” film executives should be cautious before greenlighting the next graphic novel or comic book adaptation (hear that “Green Lantern” and “Green Hornet”?).
“There is too heavy a reliance on the fanboy and fangirl crowd, and they don’t always branch out to the mainstream,” an individual with knowledge of the film’s marketing campaign told TheWrap. “You can only dig into the bottom of well of the comic book canon, before you come up with esoteric characters no one’s heard of.”
3. At This Stage, Michael Cera Couldn’t Open an Envelope
“Scott Pilgrim”s’ fate may have been sealed the moment Michael Cera nabbed the lead role.
Cera may have had a hit with “Superbad” and “Juno,” but the credit there may lie with Judd Apatow and Diablo Cody, respectively: Films with Cera’s name above the title since have all bombed. “Year One” earned $43.3 million, “Youth in Revolt” netted $15.3 million and “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” grossed $31.5 million. Like “Scott Pilgrim,” all the these films featured Cera as a mumbling, geeky, and virginal protagonist.
4. Slacker Fatigue
Despite the fantastical elements and efforts to sell its superhero elements, the film’s downtrodden protagonist may have hit a little too close to home: Pilgrim lacks a steady job, sleeps in his gay best friend’s bed and seems perfectly content with his dead-end prospects in a bad economy.
“In recessionary time, who wants to see a movie about 20-year-old slacker do-nothings who are in a band? You’d rather slap them than go watch them in a movie,” a film marketing executive told TheWrap.
5. The Price Tag
Universal spent heavily on “Scott Pilgrim,” in part to seduce audiences with its eye-popping visuals. But that razzle and dazzle came with a hefty price tag. The movie, however, may have ultimately been too offbeat to justify its cost.
“This should have never been a studio movie. It feels like an indie movie and if they’d released the movie through Focus [Features] it would have felt more organic,” a rival studio marketing executive told TheWrap.
Takeaway for screenwriters: Focus on #1. Since marketing a movie is so critical to its box office performance, especially with how ‘noisy’ the consumer marketplace is nowadays, generally the simpler the better. Story concept. Genre. Keep it simple. Action. Comedy. Thriller. Those are the main genres in which Hollywood traffics. You can mix two and get away with it. But three? Superhero adventure / romance / comedy. If it’s confusing to the studio’s marketing department, it almost assuredly will be confusing to consumers.
For the rest of the article, go here.
Do you have any final thoughts on why Scott Pilgrim tanked?
Comment Archive