# Scott Pilgrim movie vs. The Expendables



## Bender (Aug 13, 2010)

VS.









Between the two films currently out in theaters which one do you like better?


----------



## Black Wraith (Aug 13, 2010)

Statham and Li.

Nuff said.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 13, 2010)

A bunch of washed up actors and one sort of still prominent one versus an actual movie? 

Scott Pilgrim, and apparently people who've seen the latter agree.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 13, 2010)

This thread is gonna get ugly or it will be swiftly deleted, I hope for the later. Anyway I want to see both movies because they both look entertaining.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Aug 13, 2010)

I'll tell you when i download the expendables in a couple of months.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 13, 2010)

~Gesy~ said:


> I'll tell you when i download the expendables in a couple of months.


That's how its going to go for me and I'm expecting to be disappointed.


----------



## Bender (Aug 13, 2010)

From other thread



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Does that not make sense to anyone else?



It does, I just wasn't expecting Stallone to do such a piss poor job at reviving it. If anything "Predators" movie did a better job at depicting a group of gun-wielding  bad asses.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 14, 2010)

> Now I know you're smoking some bad crack. The Dark Knight action & adventure drama, suspense.



It was more drama and suspense though. There were only a few "action" scenes, and even then, most of it focused more on buildup.

The Kingdom was not an action film either. It was a war drama.



> They're militant movies aren't they?



But they're not "action" movies!



> Only a bit. Unless you're going to call this cheesy...



Joker dancing to Prince music, henchies in nylon suits, corny one liners, over-the-top acting......Like Jarhead, I wonder if you've seen these movies too.



> Schumacher is a hack. Plain and simple
> 
> Rubber suit. Nuff said.



Actually, if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that Schumacher has directed just as many good films as he's done bad. Ever see "The Lost Boys" or "A Time to Kill"?



> I'm saying Stallone is upset because his type of action genre films are no longer popular and he's being a baby.



Prove it. 



> Look at the popularity of superhero/anime/video game adaptations. Not one of them are like his type.



You're still presuming things.



> I'm not making shit up either.



Yes you are. Presuming Stallone has some grudge against comic book films IS MAKING SHIT UP.



> Umm yeah they do. In fact some of the audience that comprised Speed Racer were children and old folks that remember it(not to mention my dad).



And yet it has ALL those things you said that would make Scott Pilgrim a hit.



> The reason Prince of Persia didn't do so well was because it had very few elements of the video game. Not to mention limited features of the dagger of time. The actor who plays the prince was a poor choice, the villain was stale and lousy dialogue. The only thing that kept me awake for the movie wa the dweeb that kept saying "This is why I don't pay taxes". Everything else was meh.



Once again you're confusing your opinion with everyone elses. 


> I'm sorry but what-? What are you just saying that because they rated your movie poorly? Critics opinions actually do(well Rottentomatoes do). Sorry hombre but The Expendables was a unrememberable piece of work. Especially, if it's appeal was rehashed action flicks throughout this summer.



No, they've rated worse to movies I liked more. I expected this to not sit well with critics and I dont mind it, much like how I dont mind that critics hate slashers. 

Yet look at the success rate. They liked "Splice". No one watched it. They liked "Kickass". It was a modest success.



> You forgot about Juno, that was actually pretty good for teenagers dealing with teen pregnancies. On another note, he hasn't been dealing with too many movies after Superbad. Also Nick and Nora was actually pretty alright. Youth in revolt was the same.



I didnt mention Juno and Superbad in the same way I didnt mention the success of Stallone's big hits. Its only the last few movies that matter. I havent seen Nick/Youth, Im just going on the box office results. I actually enjoyed Year One(as a guilty pleasure).

Juno and Superbad were hits, but not because of Cena. Of course, Scott Pilgrim can be a hit, but it wouldnt be because of Cena(I was shooting down your claims that Cena would bring anybody).



> Actually buddy, it's mixed. Meaning it's hard to decide whether to call it good or bad. But if it's all flashing muscles then it should be direct-to-DVD.



Genius, look at the reviews by everyone, not just the critics(for some reason, I think you're the kind who bitches about critics being out of touch when they dislike a movie you do, but emrbace them when they agree.

The best way to determine opinions is imdb. Not its final score, but each vote. 73% of the voters so far gave it a 10/10. 15.4% gave it a 7-9. That means 88% gave it a positive review. 48% gave SP a 10/10. With 29% giving it a 7-9/10. That means 77% gave it a positive review.

Thats pretty good, but so far, people are liking the Expendables more. Sure, you can expect those numbers to go down, but that still will mean that more people liked The Expendables. 



> Stallone does too. What's your point?



This was a mistake on my part. That whole sentence was someone elses, I just forgot to put quotes. My bad.



> Are you serious? Superbad?



That, along with Juno, are his most popular movies. But both also had a lot of buzz and hype, and neither did well because of Cera(although he did do well in both movies). Im not ignoring those films. But those were what put him off the map.

Every movie since then has had little-to-no success(financially at least).



> They might as well be, since Stallone is still addicted to the 80's movie atmosphere. At least try and adapt to the favorite elements of movie fans. Stallone's only thinking of his favorites.



lol, you dont know a lot about 80's action films. If you really want to understand it, watch all the Rambo movies. "First Blood" was a very serious movie, featuring little violence(only one death) and treating the character seriously. It's sequel, "Rambo: First Blood Part 2" was a true representation of the 80's action film, and is actually what people remember the most. It's violent, over-the-top, cheesy(more by todays standards than then), but its whole purpose is to make someone so glorified that they can do anything. It worked for the time. "Rambo 3" took it even farther(I think this was in the late 80's/early 90's, when action cheese was at its highest) by having Stallone charge a chopter ON A HORSE. It was crazy stuff. 

Those had 80's action atmosphere. But watch "Rambo"(the 4th one). Thats not 80's at all. That's this generations kind of action. Dark, gritty and violent. It's closer to Nolan's Batman films in tone, except rated R. It was what we'd expect from a movie of this age. While the early 70's had a few movies that were super dark, "Rambo" was a very unique action film in tone.

Or if you dont want to watch those, watch the Dirty Harry movies. The first one(early 70's) is pretty dark. While by the last one, Dirty Harry was invincible, over-the-top and was even chased by a remote control car strapped with bombs. 

So before you state things like this, you need to freshen up on your 80's movie knowledge. "The Expendables" isnt really a throwback to 80's action films as much as its throwing back 80's action stars into a modern day action film.



> Umm can you blame them? No one likes stupid shit-talking idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. Honestly, if Stallone says crap like this whenever he sees the decline in movies with 80's action movie elements in it
> then so be it. He's no smarter than Robert Downey Jr. when he said "The Dark Knight's ending is stupid".



This comment was ironic. You're right. No one likes stupid shit-talking idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. Did you seriously think I wasnt going to throw this at you?




> Scott Pilgrim's style has been dead a long time but we have a movie trying to revive the dead action movie of the 80's genre? Does that not make sense to anyone else?



Explained this. It's not an 80's action revival. Of course it can be a revival. The fact is, we dont know.


----------



## illmatic (Aug 14, 2010)

Micheal Cera is hit or miss

Made profit/A hit
Nick and Norah
Superbad
Juno

Box office bombs
Youth in Revolt
Year One


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 14, 2010)

illmatic said:


> Micheal Cera is hit or miss
> 
> Made profit/A hit
> Nick and Norah
> ...



I think you can hardly credit him for Juno, he's barely in that.


----------



## Sassy (Aug 14, 2010)

Can I say both look like Shi........

I mean like crap?


----------



## Bear Walken (Aug 14, 2010)

I liked both and voted that way. But Pilgrim is the overall better movie. It didn't do so well on Friday though and is looking to be another flopper for Cera. 



NinjaSassy212 said:


> Can I say both look like Shi........
> 
> I mean like crap?



No, you mean shit. But they weren't. So ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 14, 2010)

Bear Walken said:


> I liked both and voted that way. But Pilgrim is the overall better movie. It didn't do so well on Friday though and is looking to be another flopper for Cera.



Which would be really sad because its a well reviewed good movie that is funny and fun which is rare.


----------



## Superrazien (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm not a fan of Micheal Cera he is almost as bad as Shila Bouf (or how ever you spell his name).


----------



## Bender (Aug 14, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> It was more drama and suspense though. There were only a few "action" scenes, and even then, most of it focused more on buildup.





> The Kingdom was not an action film either. It was a war drama.





FAIL

It was a movie about an FBI investigation. ;apathy

Proof that you're throwing out comments as you go along in this debate.




> But they're not "action" movies!



Strike one



> Joker dancing to Prince music



It's called psychotic villain ever heard of it?




> henchies in nylon suits, corny one liners, over-the-top acting......Like Jarhead, I wonder if you've seen these movies too.



If you knew anything about Batman then you'd know these type of actions are typical in his world. 



> Actually, if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that Schumacher has directed just as many good films as he's done bad.



That ridiculous neanderthalic crap you were saying describes Schumacher's films perfectly. Poison Ivy ,Mr. Freeze, Bane in Batman & Robin not to mention Riddler and Two-face in Batman Forever. Corny a hell.



> Ever see "The Lost Boys" or "A Time to Kill"?



Yeah, it was shrubby crummy bullshit



> Prove it.



Just wait until Scott Pilgrim takes residence at the top box office you'll see.




> You're still presuming things.



No I'd say that's you.




> Yes you are. Presuming Stallone has some grudge against comic book films IS MAKING SHIT UP.



I never SAID "comic book films" I meant just Batman. 




> And yet it has ALL those things you said that would make Scott Pilgrim a hit.



Oh this is good

Please summarize what Stallone's film has that Scott Pilgrim doesn't. You know besides the obvious feature that it has the direct-to-video feel.



> Once again you're confusing your opinion with everyone elses.



Nearly everyone thinks Stallone's a washed up actor.



> Genius, look at the reviews by everyone, not just the critics(for some reason, I think you're the kind who bitches about critics being out of touch when they dislike a movie you do, but emrbace them when they agree.



You are in so much denial that it's down right hilarious.



> The best way to determine opinions is imdb. Not its final score, but each vote. 73% of the voters so far gave it a 10/10. 15.4% gave it a 7-9. That means 88% gave it a positive review. 48% gave SP a 10/10. With 29% giving it a 7-9/10. That means 77% gave it a positive review.



Are you fucking serious? Imdb is not a reliable source.



> Thats pretty good, but so far, people are liking the Expendables more.



Nice generalization. You're about reliable for a review on "The Expendables" as you were for "Dragon Ball: Evolution" 




> lol, you dont know a lot about 80's action films.



I know that "The Expendables" is a poor recreation of them. If anything it's a direct-to-video with the sour elements of films like The Losers A-team remake.


----------



## Zhariel (Aug 14, 2010)

Expendables looks like a bunch of wash ups battling for who can have the most cliche cheesey lines.

Scott Pilgrim looks decent, I just am hesitant about Michael Cera films. They often annoy me.

Will I go see both? Yes.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 14, 2010)

> FAIL
> 
> It was a movie about an FBI investigation. ;apathy
> 
> Proof that you're throwing out comments as you go along in this debate.



ohfortheloveofGod, THAT IS STILL NOT AN ACTION MOVIE! Stop changing your argument. While you're right about it being an FBI investigation, it is still pretty much a war drama(just replace soldiers with FBI).



> It's called psychotic villain ever heard of it?




And it's still cheesy to watch. I cant believe you're even arguing with me on this. Go rewatch the Batman movies. Its obviously been quite some time since you've done so.



> If you knew anything about Batman then you'd know these type of actions are typical in his world.



And that stops it from being cheesy how?



> That ridiculous neanderthalic crap you were saying describes Schumacher's films perfectly. Poison Ivy ,Mr. Freeze, Bane in Batman & Robin not to mention Riddler and Two-face in Batman Forever. Corny a hell.



I know his Batman movies were corny as hell. I hated them both. But those arent the only movie Schumacher has directed.  



> Yeah, it was shrubby crummy bullshit



I don't believe you. You dont seem to remember the Batman movies very well, and you apparently have not seen most of those war movies that you used. So why should I believe that you've seen either of these?

But presuming you have: Both A Time to Kill and The Lost Boys have recieved good reviews. Once again, stop confusing your opinion with fact. 



> Just wait until Scott Pilgrim takes residence at the top box office you'll see.



Have you seen the numbers so far? Opening day, SP made around 4,000,000. The Expendables has made 13 million. Hell, SP was beaten by Eat Pray Love. 



> No I'd say that's you.



Give examples. 



> I never SAID "comic book films" I meant just Batman.



Im pretty sure you said that but even if you didnt, its still a retarded statement.



> Oh this is good
> 
> Please summarize what Stallone's film has that Scott Pilgrim doesn't. You know besides the obvious feature that it has the direct-to-video feel.



First off, you've obviously never watched a direct-to-video movie(one that was made for it). Im presuming you're ripping off the critic who made that statement(who also never watched a dtv movie). A direct-to-DVD action movie usually is so shoddily made and poorly lit that you cant tell what's going on, and little action happens, but when it does, its pretty bland. Just watch a Seagal movie.

As for what the Expendables has that SP doesn't, you've missed the point of what makes a movie a hit: We'll never know what makes a movie a hit. Its just a matter if people want to see it. The quality is only a minor asset in the long run.

As for what it does have: Gore, hardcore action, real men doing the action and a nonstop level of intensity.



> Nearly everyone thinks Stallone's a washed up actor.



Actually, since "Cop Land" he's re-earned respect. Not to mention "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo". Dont get where you pulled this out of your ass.



> You are in so much denial that it's down right hilarious.



Coming from the guy who for some reason thinks SP will beat out the Expendables at the box office, even though early numbers has the Expendables earning more than twice the money. You know, for a moment, I was actually kind of worried. But I should've been more worried about Eat Pray Love, which was a closer rival.



> Are you fucking serious? Imdb is not a reliable source.



In the final score, you're correct. But when you look at the individual votes, it's the most reliable site for that kind of stuff. Not Rotten Tomatoes, which only includes accomplished critics. Imdb represents the average viewer.



> Nice generalization. You're about reliable for a review on "The Expendables" as you were for "Dragon Ball: Evolution"



I've already proven this, and you havent even read my Expendables review, so shut up. Pulling a Rukia and trying to gain credibility by mentioning my lukewarm DBE review just shows how desperate you are. 



> I know that "The Expendables" is a poor recreation of them. If anything it's a direct-to-video with the sour elements of films like The Losers A-team remake.



No, you dont. For one, most fans of those films have been enthusiastic on the Expendables. Two, you dont know what 80's action movies are, and the fact you ignored my explanation of them shows you even know that but are too stubborn to admit it. Three, you have no idea what a DTV movie is like and are just ripping off another critic.

I have to wonder what SP fans think of your argument. Your arguing on a turf where you simply don't belong.


----------



## Bender (Aug 14, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> ohfortheloveofGod, THAT IS STILL NOT AN ACTION MOVIE! Stop changing your argument. While you're right about it being an FBI investigation, it is still pretty much a war drama(just replace soldiers with FBI).



Know what? Drop it. The first rule to a debate is listening to the dissenting point of view (which you obviously aren't doing).





> And it's still cheesy to watch. I cant believe you're even arguing with me on this.





> Go rewatch the Batman movies. Its obviously been quite some time since you've done so.



I watched Batman Returns two days ago and it's more gritty than it is cheesy.



And that stops it from being cheesy how?



> I know his Batman movies were corny as hell. I hated them both. But those arent the only movie Schumacher has directed.



No shit Sherlock,he also directed Phantom of the opera which also sucked.




> I don't believe you. You dont seem to remember the Batman movies very well



Are you serious? You're seriously questioning my Batman film knowledge? I'm one of the biggest Batman aficionado's around buddy. 



> , and you apparently have not seen most of those war movies that you used.



I've seen Saving Private Ryan. 



> So why should I believe that you've seen either of these?



I don't expect you to believe me. And in all honesty I don't care if you do or don't.



> But presuming you have: Both A Time to Kill and The Lost Boys have recieved good reviews. Once again, stop confusing your opinion with fact.



The only thing that makes A time to kill replayable movie is Samuel L Jackson's performance (since in nearly every movie his is an A+). On another note these films are from the 80's, a time when nearly every person in hollywood had exceptional talent.




> Have you seen the numbers so far? Opening day, SP made around 4,000,000. The Expendables has made 13 million. Hell, SP was beaten by Eat Pray Love.



Once again, you're showing that you don't know your facts. Scott Pilgrim beat Eat, Pray Love. Also it's not the end of the week yet chum. 



> Give examples.



You're speaking like you remember all the hot actions flicks of the 80's when you don't. You believe that this movie successfully revives 80's action flicks when in actuality it's a mutilated version of the glorious films back then. Also this is the 20th century- meaning the 80's are over. Coming with this type of mentality to cinema Stallone is no better then the stereotypical old folks that are like "Hey you kids get off my lawn!" or chastising the new generation for not acknowledging the old.  




> Im pretty sure you said that but even if you didnt, its still a retarded statement.



What's retarded is he's blaming Batman films because people don't likehis



> First off, you've obviously never watched a direct-to-video movie(one that was made for it).



On the contrary I have. I saw the movie Ninja (which was made in response to Ninja Assassin) it sucked and I saw Urban Justice starring Steven Segal. The same little bitch that was pissed he didn't get a role in the movie Last Samurai.






> As for what it does have: Gore, hardcore action, real men doing the action and a nonstop level of intensity.



Please, you can barely see through the cloud of smoke when they're firing guns at each other. Here's what people find appealing about it and is just a plain stupid reason: The biggest badasses in the same room talking. WOW that's amazing. :WOW :WOW

If you want Gore, go and watch The Punisher (the one with Tom Jane). Even though there's little action, gun shooting he still shows he's a badass.

The Expendables flaws with it's sub-plot of Jason Statham 



> Actually, since "Cop Land" he's re-earned respect. Not to mention "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo".



Are you serious? Neither one of those films landed him in the top of the box office for two weeks.



> Dont get where you pulled this out of your ass.



 @ the irony




> Coming from the guy who for some reason thinks SP will beat out the Expendables at the box office, even though early numbers has the Expendables earning more than twice the money.



Even if it does manage to pull a victory it's only showing that some people don't know what makes a good movie. However, considering it's 44% on Rottentomatoes that it currently holds there's a chance Scott Pilgrim will back on it's feet and take the top. Plus, the weekend isn't over yet Chuck.





> *Imdb represents the average viewer.*



 You sir are sad. 

I repeat:

Imdb 

CANNOT 

BE

TRUSTED

 for 


SHIT.



Period.



> I've already proven this, and you havent even read my Expendables review, so shut up.



That piece of shit review? It's terrible. Giving it a near perfect score just brought you back down to your fail status.



> Pulling a Rukia and trying to gain credibility by mentioning my lukewarm DBE review just shows how desperate you are.



Not really, it's me trying to bring you back down to reality.




> No, you dont. For one, most fans of those films have been enthusiastic on the Expendables.



There is no facepalm that can dictate the fail in this statement. -_-



> Two, you dont know what 80's action movies are, and the fact you ignored my explanation of them shows you even know that but are too stubborn to admit it.



My grandma owns action films at her house which me and my cuzins watch.
I know what they are chump.



> Three, you have no idea what a DTV movie is like and are just ripping off another critic.



Oh lordy you are so right. That's why I'm bringing it in, in the first place. 



> I have to wonder what SP fans think of your argument. Your arguing on a turf where you simply don't belong.



I don't give a shit what other people think. I'm not self-conscious about what people think of me like you are.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Aug 14, 2010)

When IMDB says rates a movie above 8, you can almost guarantee that's its a good movie. Besides, who wants to listen to what "top critics" have to say about movies. They review movies as a job, rather then, oh say your average person who just watched the movie because they thought it was entertaining. In the end, the movie just has to be enjoyable and to your liking.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 14, 2010)

> Know what? Drop it. The first rule to a debate is listening to the dissenting point of view (which you obviously aren't doing).



The hell? What are you talking about? For you to be correct in this, "THE KINGDOM" HAS TO BE AN ACTION MOVIE!

You obviously know this, which is why you want to drop it, but I dont even get why you would even bother with this. Have you seen "The Kingdom"?



> I watched Batman Returns two days ago and it's more gritty than it is cheesy.



It is, but that doesnt mean there aren't plenty of cheesy moments. As I said, this is my problem with both films(although I like them both, even prefering BR to Batman Begins). Both for the most part are dark and gothic, so the cheesy moments feel out-of-place.



> No shit Sherlock,he also directed Phantom of the opera which also sucked.



Another movie that was well recieved that you just happen to hate. Once again, YOUR OPINION IS WORTH SHIT COMPARED TO THE MASSES.



> Are you serious? You're seriously questioning my Batman film knowledge? I'm one of the biggest Batman aficionado's around buddy.



Can you blame me? The knowledge you've shown is unimpressive.



> I've seen Saving Private Ryan.



Which you didnt list among your examples. Once again, not an action movie. Even though it did have an awesome opening.



> The only thing that makes A time to kill replayable movie is Samuel L Jackson's performance (since in nearly every movie his is an A+). On another note these films are from the 80's, a time when nearly every person in hollywood had exceptional talent.



The majority of viewers disagree. Once again, and I dont get this with you, just because you dont like something doesn't mean that everyone else will.



> On the contrary I have. I saw the movie Ninja (which was made in response to Ninja Assassin) it sucked and I saw Urban Justice starring Steven Segal. The same little bitch that was pissed he didn't get a role in the movie Last Samurai.



Amusing, as Ninja was considered unusually good for a direct-to-DVD movie and Urban Justice was considered unusually passable for a Steven Seagal movie. 

Wow, that's two of the better direct-to-DVD movies you've seen. You obviously no nothing of the subject, especially as both of those films had low budgets. 



> Please, you can barely see through the cloud of smoke when they're firing guns at each other. Here's what people find appealing about it and is just a plain stupid reason: The biggest badasses in the same room talking. WOW that's amazing.
> 
> If you want Gore, go and watch The Punisher (the one with Tom Jane). Even though there's little action, gun shooting he still shows he's a badass.
> 
> The Expendables flaws with it's sub-plot of Jason Statham



lol, everyone disagrees with you. People loved the action in Expendables, and everyone hated The Punisher. While the Expendables does have its flaws(the Statham's gal subplot probably being the most notable), that doesnt change the fact that it succeeds at being what it wants to be. Which is why it's so popular. 



> Are you serious? Neither one of those films landed him in the top of the box office for two weeks.



Respect doesn't mean box office pull, although it shows that Stallone still has a fair amount of it(better than Michael Cera, btw).



> Even if it does manage to pull a victory it's only showing that some people don't know what makes a good movie. However, considering it's 44% on Rottentomatoes that it currently holds there's a chance Scott Pilgrim will back on it's feet and take the top. Plus, the weekend isn't over yet Chuck.



lol..you really like to lean back on RT, don't you. To me, thats even less reliable than imdb. Imdb at least shows what the masses prefer. While the critics opinions are valid, you shouldnt rely on them for every movie. 

It's funny though how you're changing your argument. First, it was SP will beat Expendables. Now you're trying to cover your ass with excuses. Either way, Im not convinced YOU know what makes a movie good. 



> You sir are sad.
> 
> I repeat:
> 
> ...



Repeating yourself isnt going to make you correct. 



> That piece of shit review? It's terrible. Giving it a near perfect score just brought you back down to your fail status.



Your attempts at pissing me off are just amusing. You've lost this argument and know it, even if you still believe in all your garbage. I gave it a near perfect score because I rate movies based on what they're going for. (or at least I try too). I rated Expendables based on what it was trying to accomplish(hardcore action film). I dont think you've even read it, because I even state that if you dont like these kinds of movies, then you wont like this one. 



> My grandma owns action films at her house which me and my cuzins watch.
> I know what they are chump.



Apparently you dont, as you dont even know what makes a usual 80's actioner. 



> I don't give a shit what other people think. I'm not self-conscious about what people think of me like you are.



Yeah, I'm totally self conscious. I've had to defend my super negative reviews of Gamer, my lukewarm review of District 9, and the fact that I didnt hate The Last Airbender and DBE......Yet I've never changed my opinions on any of those. I dont even get where you're getting this "presumption" from.


----------



## Violent by Design (Aug 14, 2010)

What is Bender and Martial Horror even arguing about? No, literally I don't know where the argument started .


Anyway, I saw both of them this weekend. Scot Pilgram vs The World was a lot better than the Expendables. Expendables making more money during the weekend doesn't mean anything, it merely means that more people assumed it would be better due to its roster.

There were a lot of parts of the Expendables that was so boring. Basically anytime they were just talking, it was like "why are these guys still talking and not whooping ass". If the dialogue was just a bunch of cheesy but charming cliche lines, it would have been nice - but alot of it was just poor writing.


----------



## Bender (Aug 14, 2010)

@Rawraw 

Imbdb also makes baseless claims on who is in a movie. Votes for movie rankings have the ballots stuffed




Violent By Design said:


> What is Bender and Martial Horror even arguing about? No, literally I don't know where the argument started .



We're arguing about the better movie.  MH is convinced that Scott Pilgrim lacks many features and thus fails in comparison to The Expendables. And also thinks that Sylvester Stallone's flick is a good revival of 80's action movies.


----------



## Maycara (Aug 14, 2010)

Can't comment on this really yet, but i really have no interest in the expend. Like scott pilgram though...most of it...lol


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 14, 2010)

Violent: The thread started in the Scott Pilgrim thread. I dont know why Bender is claiming we're arguing about which is the better movie, as I havent seen SP yet(and right now, I dont think I want too). We're arguing about he makes baseless claims.


----------



## illmatic (Aug 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think you can hardly credit him for Juno, he's barely in that.



He was on the poster.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 16, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> I'm getting very tired of repeating myself here.....It's not nostalgia. It's reinvention. If any of you actually remembered action movies from the 80's and 90's, you'd know that "The Expendables" is nothing of the sort. Also, you're overlooking that  "The Expendables" has been about as well recieved as SP by the masses.



I wanted to talk about this in the proper place for it. I can not believe you said that considering the movie is being sold on aging talent and follows the same plot as Rambo.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

Taleran said:


> I wanted to talk about this in the proper place for it. I can not believe you said that considering the movie is being sold on aging talent and follows the same plot as Rambo.



Once again, what aging talent? Schwarzenegger and Stallone are the only old action stars. Lundgren is bigger now than he was before, Statham is still in his prime, Jet Li is only slightly past his prime but still churns out good movies, Eric Roberts has recently had a revival due to "The Dark Knight", Terry Crews is also still in his prime and Couture and Stallone aren't actors. 

Bruce Willis, while no longer as bankable as before, still gets A-list treatment(Surrogates, while a bomb, cost 80,000,000 to make. And "Red" looks pretty big budgeted as well).

The fact you mention "Rambo" shows how little you know. "Rambo" is nothing like the action movies of old. While yes, "The Expendables" does seem like its ripping the plot, that has nothing to do with nostalgia.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 16, 2010)

The mere fact that RAMBO is called RAMBO and stars Stallone makes it A LOT to do with Nostalgia, you just sound naive now.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

Er, what? "Rambo" is a sequel. Are all sequels around for nostalgia's sake?

Hell, Stallone didnt even create the movie(nor Rocky 6) for that reason. He wanted to end the character respectfully.

But even then, I dont see how ripping off the plot of a movie that MIGHT be nostalgic makes "The Expendables" nostalgic.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 16, 2010)

Expendables is Nostalgic because it is sold as the coming together of all these actions stars whose movies you probably grew up watching. That is like the definition of Nostalgia.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

But what if we're STILL watching them? Then it cant just be nostalgia. 

Most of these guys still have solid careers.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 16, 2010)

Sure it can. 

They all had better movies than this one that took place in the past some very far in the past.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

Taleran said:


> Sure it can.
> 
> They all had better movies than this one that took place in the past some very far in the past.



What does that have to do with anything? 

Plus, you're letting your opinion be confused with fact. What if I responded that The Expendables was their BEST movie? I dont really think that, but if I said that, it would have just as much relevance as your reasoning. 

But the whole point is that it's an ensemble action cast. That's like saying "War" was meant to be nostalgic because Jet Li and Jason Statham were in it together, and they did "The One" prior.


----------



## Parallax (Aug 16, 2010)

The only one who has a better career is Mickey Rourke cause of his work on The Wrestler.  Besides Statham I don't remember any of them releasing a action film worth watching in the past few years.  I don't count Crews cause a majority of his work is comedy.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

Parallax said:


> The only one who has a better career is Mickey Rourke cause of his work on The Wrestler.  Besides Statham I don't remember any of them releasing a action film worth watching in the past few years.  I don't count Crews cause a majority of his work is comedy.



Rambo, Fearless and Unleashed and The Dark Knight were awesome.


----------



## Bender (Aug 16, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> What does that have to do with anything?





> Plus, you're letting your opinion be confused with fact.



Once again you're using the same gay excuse when you're losing an argument. 



> I dont know why Bender is claiming we're arguing about which is the better movie, as I havent seen SP yet(and right now, I dont think I want too).



Because you're too goddamn biased and busy dickriding overhyped homoerotic "Expendables" movies. 


The Expendables isn't a movie it's a friggin brain dead rehashed 80' action footage movie.

Also I found the person comparison for this movie: DOOM


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 16, 2010)

> Once again you're using the same gay excuse when you're losing an argument.



Am I wrong? How am I supposed to take you seriously if you say something like "A Time to Kill" is crap when the majority disagree? It's fine if you feel that way, but it's not when you start forcing that opinion on us.

Plus, you've abandoned the debate, probably because its obvious you couldnt go any farther. Even SP fans have begun to disown you.



> Because you're too goddamn biased and busy dickriding overhyped homoerotic "Expendables" movies.



And you're not with SP? It's too bad most people are trying to stay away from this argument, because I'd like to hear what other people say. What's more biased? Anything I said or the fact that you claimed Stallone made "The Expendables" out of anger against comic book movies. 



> The Expendables isn't a movie it's a friggin brain dead rehashed 80' action footage movie.
> 
> Also I found the person comparison for this movie: DOOM



Yet it STILL kicked the shit out of "Scott Pilgrim", which might be the biggest bomb of the year so far. You're just unable to accept that.


----------



## Alucard4Blood (Aug 16, 2010)

Expendables I Will Say Better Movie  Not planing to watch scott pilgram stupid teen bullshit


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

@Martial Horror

Box office bomb my ass. Jonah Hex failed way worse.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Bender said:


> @Martial Horror
> 
> Box office bomb my ass. Jonah Hex failed way worse.



Not really. It cost only 47 million and grossed 10 million total.

Thats around a 42,000,000 loss.

So far, SP is around a 85,000,000 loss, although it might make it back faster on DVD. Plus, it may be one of those movies that does better than what the opening weekened suggests(although ultimately, it will still be a bomb for awhile).


----------



## Parallax (Aug 17, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Rambo, Fearless and Unleashed and The Dark Knight were awesome.



Fearless came out four years ago, Unleashed came out five, The Dark Knight was not an action film and doesn't feature any of them, or at least not in any prominent role, and Rambo was ok


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2010)

I saw the expendables and liked it because it was everything it promised to be. A monument to the eighties actions stars.

And didn't have to use 3-d


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Not really. It cost only 47 million and grossed 10 million total.
> 
> Thats around a 42,000,000 loss.
> 
> So far, SP is around a 85,000,000 loss, although it might make it back faster on DVD. Plus, it may be one of those movies that does better than what the opening weekened suggests(although ultimately, it will still be a bomb for awhile).



Jonah Hex was at the bottom of the box office when it premiered.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Bender said:


> Jonah Hex was at the bottom of the box office when it premiered.



True, but Im focused more on how much money they lose. Jonah Hex may have made less and placed lower, but it also had half of SP's budget.


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> True, but Im focused more on how much money they lose. Jonah Hex may have made less and placed lower, but it also had *half* of SP's budget.



Look at that:




> True, but Im focused more on how much money they lose. Jonah Hex may have made less and placed lower, but it also had *half* of SP's budget.


[/QUOTE]


One more time:




> True, but Im focused more on how much money they lose. Jonah Hex may have made less and placed lower, but it also had *half* of SP's budget.


[/QUOTE]

A half does not equal whole.

In fact The Expendables is losing by 40% on rottentomatoes to Scott Pilgrim.

In the end a movies credibility isn't determined by it's money rather it's reviews. Looking at reviewing websites (excluding Imdb) The Expendables is mixed. If you want to be precise you can look at it from this angle (even though it still sucks): The Expendables didn't get poor reviews. 

What makes it look sore as hell is that it didn't pull out more of a win for SP fans is adapting to the new age technology. It doesn't mean it's fail if it does but rather it's experimenting. A mix of action utilizing both self performed stunt and CGI is win. Stallone should've of at least realized that.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

I have no idea what you're talking about. 

Once again, first you're all smug in your belief that SP would make more money than the Expendables. When it bombs, you back pedal and claim pretty much that everyone is stupid.

You then for some reason bring up Jonah Hex, stating that SP at least didnt bomb as hard as that. You make a point that it placed lower in the top 10. 

I state that while this is true, Jonah Hex had about half of Scott Pilgrims budget. You stress the HALF part, but then start talking about how SP got better reviews than the Expendables for some reason. 

You say: 





> In the end a movies credibility isn't determined by it's money rather it's reviews.


 but this contrasts to our earlier arguments when you were so convinced SP would beat out Expendables in terms of money.....and why are we suddenly discussing the Expendables when we were just talking Jonah Hex?

It's like you have ADD and its showing in your arguments. It's confusing. 

As for it's credibility, a movies credibility is fan response. Scott Pilgrim is probably the better movie, but who cares? I wanted to see the Expendables succeed more than Scott Pilgrim fail. In fact, the only reason I was glad that SP bombed is BECAUSE OF YOU. 

Critics dont mean shit in the long run. They were lukewarm on many movies that are now classics("The Thing", "Blade Runner", all the hammer horror films, most of Cameron's earlier works). Will "Scott Pilgrim" be regarded as a classic over time? Maybe. Will "The Expendables" reputation falter as more action films like it come out? Probably. 

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're presenting such a horrible argument that you might as well be. 

I think I need to make a thread dedicated to why RT is not reliable.


----------



## Amanomurakumo (Aug 17, 2010)

Saw both, liked both. For the purpose of this thread, think it'd be a bit hypocritical to judge which is the better movie without havin' seen both at least.

The nostalgia argument against The Expendables is a bit tired by the way. Stallone is the only one to really represent the action hero of old while most of the rest are still currently making movies. It was pitched as an action movie with an ensemble of action stars and that was what we received. No one tries to pin the nostalgia patch on other ensemble cast movies.

I for one was glad for the lack of/little CGI in the Expendables. Made the movie a lot more enjoyable as actual stunts and real explosions are far better in that type of film. CGI worked wonders for SP.

Scott Pilgrim was a blast in it's own way. First comic movie in a while that stayed as true to the source as it could. The style and detail was something fresh and anyone that really needed stuff explained (how Scott is suddenly a martial arts expert) like every other comic movie lost the point of the movie.

I'd buy SP on DVD though, but it's because I collect quirky films like that.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

If the hypocritcal comment was made by me, I've never argued that the Expendables is the better movie.


----------



## Amanomurakumo (Aug 17, 2010)

You walk the fine line but I agree that you never stated The Expendables to be better. Though a lot of your complaints for SP could be remedied if you actually watch it and see it in context (Bender be damned).

I knew SP would get outsold though. That type of movie is just not "masses" friendly as some would like it to be, despite it being very entertaining.


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

Amanakuro said:
			
		

> (how Scott is suddenly a martial arts expert)



It's not explained in the comic book either. Although in the Adult Swim Scott Pilgrim movie promo it kinda helps explains it showing that he got into fights before he went out with Kim Pines.

@Martial Horror

 I'm through arguing with you. It's quite clear that you are a biased whiny brat.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

> @Martial Horror
> 
> I'm through arguing with you. It's quite clear that you are a biased whiny brat.



Once again, I have no idea where you are coming up with that based on my last post, where I'm explaining how your posts dont even seem to be responses. You just go on some random tangeant. 

It's funny, really.


----------



## typhoon72 (Aug 17, 2010)

Just saw both back to back.

Both of them are great but Scott Pilgrim is the better MOVIE. With Expendables you knew exactly what you're gonna get, and you're gonna like it.

Voted for _I liked them both_.


----------



## Koi (Aug 17, 2010)

Sooooooooo, I hear an Expendables sequel is already in the works.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Aug 17, 2010)

I wouldn't like that. They should all only hook up once imo.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 17, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's not explained in the comic book either. Although in the Adult Swim Scott Pilgrim movie promo it kinda helps explains it showing that he got into fights before he went out with Kim Pines.
> 
> @Martial Horror
> 
> I'm through arguing with you. It's quite clear that you are a biased whiny brat.



They did explain it, there is one scene where he tells Ramona that he used to get into fights all of the time as a kid and says something about him and Kim fending them off. 



Koi said:


> Sooooooooo, I hear an Expendables sequel is already in the works.



I still have no desire to see it, most of it faded when I read the reviews and people were saying exactly what I hoped they wouldn't be.


----------



## The World (Aug 17, 2010)

I loved how they made Jet Li into a comedic relief and having him make fun of himself and be picked on throughout the whole movie.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Koi said:


> Sooooooooo, I hear an Expendables sequel is already in the works.



Hopefully it's not a rehash.


----------



## typhoon72 (Aug 17, 2010)

Jet Li still had fights, somebody has to lose. At least he can be cool about it unlike Van Damme, who didnt even want to be in the movie because he was going to lose in his fight scene. How does "Jet Li makes fun of himself" turn him into comic relief? It was just a joke. Its not even that serious.

Terry Crews was killin everybody, now that was hilarious.


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They did explain it, there is one scene where he tells Ramona that he used to get into fights all of the time as a kid and says something about him and Kim fending them off.



Oh shit I how could forget?  I even have the volume which explains it.


----------



## Bluebeard (Aug 17, 2010)

Alucard4Blood said:


> Expendables I Will Say Better Movie  Not planing to watch scott pilgram stupid teen bullshit


----------



## FitzChivalry (Aug 18, 2010)

Saw both back to back, actually. I enjoyed both films, but found myself liking Scott Pilgrim vs the World more. I enjoyed its quirkiness, comic book feel and absurdly unique style.


----------

