So Scott Pilgrim bombed…?

You know, I can’t really say I’m surprised. After the perceived failure of Kick-Ass earlier this year, I figured the equally quirky and unique Scott Pilgrim would also be doomed to cult status. I have friends at Oni Press and great respect for Bryan Lee O’Malley, so I kept those thoughts largely to myself lest I be seen as a faith-lacking naysayer, but I gotta be honest…I saw this coming.

And I have a pretty good idea what’s coming next. After the underperformance of so many comic book movies based on lesser known titles this year (in addition to Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass, we also had The Losers and Jonah Hex…we’re yet to see how Red performs, which releases next month), Hollywood’s going to start losing interest in any graphic novel title that isn’t Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. At least until one of studios down the line takes a risk and manages to turn a profit adapting one of them, and then the cycle will gradually start all over again.

I have no doubt the comic book blogs and discussion boards are going to have a field day with this over the course of the week, pointing out that moviegoers prefer their comic book flicks old fashioned and comfortable rather than challenging, stylish, deconstructive or satirical. I’ll let them handle that discussion. To me, what’s more interesting is that they feel a need for the discussion in the first place. When it comes to popcorn flicks, dumb and formulaic always wins out. And I say that as someone who often enjoys the hell out of dumb and formulaic movies. When I want to see stuff blow up on screen accompanied by predictable twists and familiar dialogue, it really doesn’t matter if the source material is a comic book, an animated series, an old TV show or movie, or an original story.

In fact, it doesn’t even matter if it’s based on a bestselling novel. The Road was based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning, Oprah Winfrey-endorsed Cormac McCarthy book, and it grossed less domestically in its entire run than Scott Pilgrim grossed this weekend. The Kite Runner made just a little more than $15 million despite an awards push from its distributor, while Everything is Illuminated grossed less than $2 million. When you look at the numbers, you see that moviegoers don’t strictly ignore movies based on acclaimed graphic novels, they’re just as keen to ignore ones based on highly praised novels as well. (And I do find it amusing that no one questions the validity of prose novels as cinematic source material when a movie based on a book bombs. I’m not sure why that spotlight is currently directed at comics.)

The problem isn’t with the source material and it’s not with the medium it was derived from. The problem is the audience, and Hollywood’s continual inability to understand what they respond to. Readers react to different things than filmgoers. They’re drawn to different material. And it’s really not that difficult to figure out when a novel has film potential—it reads like a movie. Harry Potter is remarkably visual and cinematic, The Da Vinci Code all but includes slug lines, Michael Crichton used to work as a screenwriter and director, and his books read like they were written by someone envisioning them on the big screen. And of course, comic books like Iron Man and The Avengers are all really visual.

Maybe that’s where the problem lies. Maybe studio execs, who have been so blinded by dollar signs I think their vision may have degraded to the point where actual reading is impossible, hear the words “comic book” and assume that what they’re optioning is ready made for the big screen. After all, comic book pages are kinda like storyboards, right?

Well, Scott Pilgrim doesn’t read like a movie. It reads like a comic book. And judging by the comic’s current placement on Amazon and the New York Times Graphic Novel list, that’s the way most people out there would prefer to experience it.

That said, did any of you see the movie? What did you think? I’m particularly curious about anyone who hasn’t read the comic book, or possibly went to see it unaware that it was based on one.