Scott Pilgrim Vs The Universe, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom 

O'Malley´s next work Seconds is also good. His previous Lost at Sea is ok.

Seconds is actually pretty good I enjoyed the characters are alright I love Hazels design doe she’s bae lol

I read these in high school for the first time and you inspired me to watch the movie

and even THEN they get more characterisation and depth than the movie, wherein which they're JUST a powerful boss with no personality with only a bare hint of their best skill (their tech skills)

I’ll just leave this here: 📌 The Dom will know what to do with it.

@@BlackCover95 - I mean, again this is getting into stuff from the next volume/end of the film, but take the nega scott joke, where a manifestation of Scott's "dark side" appears after Gideon is defeated, and the film cuts to... a joke of scott and nega scott hanging out and agreeing to meet for coffee. It's a funny bit, I like the bit, I laugh at it every time because it's such a fun little anticlimax. But at the same time, the implied message of it, that Scott's "dark side" isn't really all that bad to begin with, that scott is actually 'a really nice guy' despite the awful things he's done? That Scott achieves closure with his inner demons by just accepting and being ok with his character flaws as they are? That's just a really bad message, because actually Scott's flaws /really are/ all that bad. Like there's some acknowledgment that Scott needs to or has changed in that he comes clean about cheating on knives & ramona, but that's about it, and it only happens after he already knows its going to come out anyway, so... yeah. The message nega-scott is used to convey in the comic is basically the exact opposite. Film Scott's confrontation with nega scott teaches him that he isn't really a bad person, while comic scott's confrontation with nega scott teaches him that, actually, he kind of is. That he's been a selfish prick to basically everyone he's ever known and that he really very much does need to change the way he treats others, a message he's only able to (literally) internalize after the events of this volume have torn him out of the comfortable rut that he's spent his whole arguably-adult life digging for himself. Obviously it's not fair to dock the film for failing to convey the message of a book that hadn't even been published when the film was produced, and I personally don't dock for it. I really enjoy the film overall, and it's not any worse about this than dozens of other hollywood blockbusters starring selfish manchildren whose behavior doesn't ever get sincerely examined or rectified. But even so, it's still a remarkably flat and off-the-mark hollywood style easy conclusion to the character compared to the significantly more nuanced depiction of scott from earlier in the film where they did have the comic to draw from, and that easy hollywood absolution for 'lovable jerk' scott can't help but be disappointing compared to the comic's deliberate subversion of exactly that sort of story and meticulous deconstruction* of exactly that sort of character. *not /just/ deconstruction either! The scott pilgrim comic doesn't just tear down lovable jerk scott, it doesn't just lay bare how harmful and flawed that archetype is, how actually bad that sort of person is, how lovability doesn't absolve one of being a jerk but rather being a jerk taints everything lovable about a person, O'Malley goes the extra mile to then /reconstruct/ scott as an actually likable person, firmly establishing that scott's jerkiness wasn't tied to what made him lovable in the first place. Scott's obviously not all the way there yet, that's not how character growth works, but by the end of the comic O'Malley's built scott into a template for a character that maintains the lovable jerk's youthful, irascible, fun & funny charm while rejecting the archetype's selfishness and deliberate, self-entitled immaturity. That's what I mean when I say the scott pilgrim comics are something special. Deconstructions can be great and good on their own, but too often they just tear something down with no idea of what should be built there instead. I mean, that's fine, it shouldn't always have to be the demolition crew's job to build the new structure too, and some concepts deserve to be torn down and just left as a blasted lot with nothing in their place. But in this particular case, O'Malley goes the extra mile, picking out what it is people love about the lovable jerk and making a case that they can have it without having the jerk, while at the same time saying it's ok and even necessary to call someone else (or yourself) out for being bad people, but that just because you have been a bad person doesn't mean you can't change and be better. bleh, I'm blathering at this point. My first comment was a lot more concise. Oh well. It's easy to get carried away with a movie this fun, a comic this good, and reviews of them them both this enjoyable.

Malisteen You built upon your original comment, this making it all the richer. The real difference between comic Scott and film Scott is the former actually improves.

@@Malisteen In the books, Nega-Scott is established as the personification of Scott's history of bad decisions and the aspects of his behaviour he denies are real. In the movie, Nega-Scott is just a warped reflection of Scott. In the book, Scott acknowledging that evil Scott is actually him and he can't blame his historical bad behaviour on any outside entity allows him to merge with Nega-Scott; in the movie, instead of acknowledging his own evil, he finds the good in Nega-Scott, having already acknowledged the evil in himself, and, rather than attempting to destroy his reflection, finds common ground, defeating Gideon's final ploy, not by destruction, but by finding another path. It's a different message, but that's not the same as having no message - and plays into one of the themes I think the movie does better than the book - the difference between how Scott and Ramona interact with people (particularly their exes). Ramona (particularly in the movie) is very intense - you're either a perfect boyfriend, or you're an evil ex (in waiting); Scott gets along with his exes, and at least some of them are actively supportive of his new relationship. So it's not surprising when Scott gets along with his evil doppelganger too. Movie Scott doesn't have the time to show his character growth the same way the book does, but he does at least reveal that he understands his past faults and wants to get better.

@@Malisteen I would note that an entirely different way of looking at film nega scott is that regular scott is actually the dark one to begin with. His opposite is a pleasant person, outgoing enough to be instant friends with a guy who only usually does so through sheer convenience, and brings out the best of regular scott in doing so. A stark contrast to Scott, who, arguably outside of Ramona in the end, constantly brings out the worst in his friends, causes them to fight and bicker constantly, and is a massive drain on every relationship formed.

Romi Maman amazon should have them for the low

Davanthall haha same! I read the comics a few days before the movie’s release so that was quite a while ago! Seeing these videos makes me realize I have forgotten most of it... I will definitely read them again during the holidays :)

Halley Rey Awesome Mukuro icon!

Nice Patrick Troughton as the Doctor profile pic, nice to see some love for the classics.

OOooh, now I get it :D

I think it's more that the time between him making the mistake, and the end of the story is much longer. So book Scott has to actually pay for his mistakes, notice he's paying for his mistakes, acknowledge that those are mistakes, demonstrate that he has changed his ways. Not have that change immediately free him from all consequences, still keep to better habits despite this. He's still an idiot at times, but he's not cruel and selfish. Movie Scott is still a dick, and I think Michael Cera is intending to play him as more of a dick, and that this was a conscious decision by the director. Since the movie lacked the time for him to grow, they just leaned into him being a dick who doesn't realize it.

@@markmittelbach7975 knifes deserved better in both versions.

If you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend holding off judgement until the end. Yes, movie-Scott is a dick for a much longer period of time, but he still gets some kind of redemption, even if it's done much more quickly and the character "growth" is more sudden.

I feel that movie-Scott's growth is little difference than the growth you see in a lot of movie characters. It occurs in the last 20 minutes so that all can be forgiven and walk off into the sunset (or subspace portal). It's the sort of growth that gets tossed in the sequel so they can do it all over again. When you take away the fantasy bits, the comic is about a guy learning to become an emotional adult whereas before he was only one, chronologically. I think that's part of why the fights get less focus. He's not really winning Ramona through the fights. He's winning her by getting his crap together and being a better person. Even in this issue, you realize he doesn't entirely see that until maybe near the end.

Knives being the obviously better character in the movie was because the original planned ending for the film was for Scott to get back together with Knives, hence her playing a role in the grand finale. O'Malley told them to change it, probably because the relationship with Knives was never supposed to be a good thing for Scott or for Knives herself. While the ending was rewritten, the rest of the movie obviously wasn't, and as such we get a Scott/Knives movie that leads up to a Scott/Ramona ending. Meanwhile, there is a scene between Scott and Knives in the final book which includes several torpedoes aimed at sinking the Scott/Knives ship, probably in response to the popularity it received after the film.

What's your favorite book and character?

Atlanta Hunter A