>oh no Scott Pilgrim is a monster who is literally the most horrible and worthless person ever
>read the comic
>he's just a loser who isn't even that bad all things considered
Can someone explain this to me?
>oh no Scott Pilgrim is a monster who is literally the most horrible and worthless person ever. >read the comic
He's insanely uninteresting if you don't overblow his negative traits. Like dating sim protagonist uninteresting.
'Scott is literally the devil' is a meme that's kind of been overblown, but let's not forget that he does have some series flaws and does some really scummy things. Like, say, dating someone who's underage and then cheating on them when someone better comes along because he's too cowardly to confront them about it.
He’s not a monster or worthless, he’s just a huge butthole which is the point. He’s not actively malicious he just fumbles his way into being awful.
I still like him, the show proved removing him removes all interest
>he's just a loser
>Best fighter in the province
>Funny
>Sociable
>Dates all the hottest girls
>Literally dated a famous rockstar
>Plays the guitar/is in a band
>"loser"
????????
>Play the guitar makes you not a loser
What is this? 1970s?
>Best fighter in the province
Scott lost every fight except the first one.
Gideon doesn't count, he had help.
Are YOU the best fighter in your province?
I could beat the shit out of some band playing nerd, if that's what you're asking.
Scott is a chad pretending to be a nerd. That's the whole point of the comic
Exactly. He's hardly 'the best fighter in the province.'
>sociable in that people allow him to hang out with them at all even though he will probably ask for some of your food at a restaurant because he's broke
>dated envy before she was famous and she dumped him as she was changing her image to become a rockstar
>not a single positive thing has ever been said about his ability to play his guitar that he forgot he borrowed from his brother which he later smashes in a fight
That's how male losers are usually presented in fiction.
>Marco Diaz
>Ron Stoppable
>Max Goof
>comparing best femboy to anyone
>Marco Diaz
Marco's not presented as a loser, he's presented as a weenie. There's a distinct difference. Plus afterwards he ended up being a metrosexual sex icon that everybody male and female loves to this day.
>has no job
>freeloads off his gay roommate
>pick up line is about fricking pac-man
>dated a clingy high schooler because he couldn't do better at his low point
>"loser"
Yes
Scott's biggest sin was that he never tried at anything. He's the worst member of his band, he doesn't support himself, he never does anyone any real kindnesses, he never reciprocates or empathizes with his partners.
Everything else about him is superficial (band, slacker mentality, video game nerd) and ultimately stays the same towards the end of the book (except he doesn't date high schoolers anymore, but he does date mentally ill women so it's not that far off) except that after his redemption and the defeat of negascott, he actively tries to grow and contribute positively to his relationships.
>Everything else about him is superficial (band, slacker mentality, video game nerd)
What character traits WOULDN'T be superficial?
He's generally lazy, makes romantic connections and flakes on them (kind of parallel to Ramona), he's child like. You know like, non superficial characteristics? Was your take away just "Canada man fight 6 guys 1 dyke wow Super Mario Bros 3 reference"?
>Was your take away just "Canada man fight 6 guys 1 dyke wow Super Mario Bros 3 reference"?
yeah actually, when the movie came out I just watched the cool video game effects and not the dating melodrama
Good point. What would examples of positive character traits be?
People hate Scott the same reason they hate Ditko era or even just pre-2000s Peter in general. They are both characters that became popular because they were relatable and part of that relatability was writing them like buttholes in certain context. They took off because that assholish behavior is part of being human and in these cases in particular part of growing up from a boy to a man is shedding abrasive feelings of insecurity and mellowing out in your maturity. People over correct on hating negative traits of a character by saying the entire character is evil are holier than thou art types who can't handle admitting they've had moments where they felt or acted like Scott and Peter have.
Scott is much worse than Ditko-era Peter, whose worst flaw is being self-absorbed due to his huge Spider-Man and sick aunt responsibilities crushing him and causing him to miss classmates reaching out to him.
Yeah I agree but it's the same thing as far as people who are reacting to them so negatively lately are concerned. Scott should be worse though because he's not from a kid friendly big 2 comic and he's a millennial and not a kid growing up in the more morally righteous 60s.
He's an inconsiderate groomer who's obsessed with his girlfriend. A lot of popular people nowadays are variations of him, and it's not funny when it happens in real life.
I'm surprised anyone likes him.
Scott isn't "literally a monster who is literally the most horrible and worthless person ever", that a hyperbolic joke morons heard before they've read it (if they even bothered to do that) and latched onto for dear life.
Scott is a self-centered dickhead by virtue of being an idiot, that's it.
He kind of reminds me of Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye.
They're both immature morons hidden behind a thin veneer of cool.
For both of these protagonist you have people missing the point of the character in one of two ways.
First are the people who'd think Scott is a cool guy and Holden is some deep intellectual.
Scott's got cool friends, cool girlfriends, is in a band and is a really good fighter, add him liking the same video games as you and on the surface he's literally me™, or at least, the me I'd like to be.
Holden is this kid who's introspective, takes himself very seriously and constantly laments the supposed stupidity of his surrounding, something most people who thought of themselves as smart can relate to.
Second are the people who'd think Scott is an butthole that gets everything for no good reason and Holden is this homosexual kid huffing his own farts.
Scott's really not a great person and despite that he's got friends, plenty of great girls into him and goes on (for lack of a better term) adventures where he ends up triumphant.
Holden doesn't do much more than whine about the world and think he's god's gift to the unwashed masses despite being proven to be a sad, pathetic little b***h fairly regularly.
I think both of these kinds of people are desperate for a very simple, one-dimensional classification for everything and everyone.
Scott's got to be either an butthole or a cool dude, he can't be the sort of guy who's fun to be around but you wouldn't trust with a Tamagochi and if he was dating your sister you'd be pissed.
Likewise Holden's either a genius or a mopy c**t, he can't be just the same kid we've all been at some point.
Why cant Scott just be a cool butthole?
Isnt that why Wolverine has fanboys?
>Why cant Scott just be a cool butthole?
Gets too self righteous and keeps trying to establish city states. Eyebeams are also a pretty lame power.
Scott isn't a cool butthole, he's an inconsiderate moron that is VERY superficially cool.
In the same way that Holden isn't a condescending intellectual, he is a teen thinking he's secretly cool and brilliant (like most of us around that age) and everyone else is dumb.
Wolverine is a cool butthole because he is in fact both cool and an butthole.
Scott only fits a dumb teen's idea of cool (which is exactly the point) and Holden is only intelligent in the eyes of dumb teens who think their internal monologue is a mark of cleverness. (that too is the point)
If I'm not mistaken around that time video games were in this in-between state where in retrospect they were already mainstream but society's idea of what video games are and who plays them didn't quite catch up.
So if a nerd was at school or college and he saw someone else with, for example, a 1-up pin on their bag, they'd genuinely get excited over meeting a peer.
And if that other person was a girl this nerd would marry this girl in his mind LONG before he'd actually learn anything more about her, let alone speak to her.
>If anything, they're inverses of each other.
I definitely agree with that, but I also think they're VERY similar in how readers perceive them.
Both Scott and Holden are more than their presentation at first glance and more than their very obvious flaws.
Scott isn't a dick (out of malice), he's just an idiot and is kind of likeable if you temper your expectations.
Holden is definitely off-putting but he's not a bad person, he's just at an age where he's a walking-talking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and he's more likely than not to grow out of it.
>t. Phoney
>add him liking the same video games as you
His taste in video games is super pleb and mainstream just like mine
>They're both immature morons hidden behind a thin veneer of cool.
I don't think that really holds. Scott is viewed as "alright to be around" by people that know him at his worst and "pretty cool" by people that don't. Holden is blatantly off-putting to everyone around him and that veneer of coolness only exists to dumb kids that read it and don't see that he's constantly as much of a hypocrit as everyone else. If anything, they're inverses of each other.
He didnt frick wallace
Scott is meant to make you think about the common clichés of a protagonist, how in real life these things would not be fun quirks but make you an ass. In turn making you think about how you act yourself. This is true of all the cast. Those silly hipsters canucks are also being shit people in the background. The point isn't to hate them but to grow up a bit, you're not actually the centre of the world who can fall back on a childish self image.
Problem is a lot of people come in going hey I knew a guy like Scott read slept with and is coping about it so I can't stand him. Meanwhile the clichés that make up his friends. Well we could kind of sweep the bad parts under the rug and now we have a cast of fun party hipster. Man wouldn't the book be better without Scott! Cause you know he's literally the devil compared to everyone else who are also lazy, cheating, adultchildren who need to get a job.
>Those silly hipsters canucks are also being shit people in the background
Stills is a good, goal driven person with no major moral deficiencies.
Didnt he also mack on Knives?
At the very least he did his gay awakening better than Tim Drake
Stills thought that Scott dating a high schooler was ,"Nice." It could have just been overcompensating for being in the closet, though.
He's not as overtly terrible. In a way he's like a minor Scott. Getting close to Knives, sticking with the band despite it genuinely being a dead end, constant petty relationship issues. Really outside of getting a good dicking by the end he is still pretty much a loser with a 17 minute EP. A character and life style a similar hipster SoL story could easily romanticise. While in reality begs to use your recording gear for free.
i think it's a lot simpler than that. people sort of just forgot that scott dated a highschooler between the last volume and now, and there was some outcry after the series started picking up steam again since the announcement of the anime.
everyone felt the need to counter the "pedophilia" claims by reaffirming that scott isn't meant to be a "good" guy, which in today's climate requires that you do so by rather forcefully adding the caveat that dating a highschooler is definitely evil and bad unless you want people to think you're a pedophile too. so in a way scott gets scapegoated & it's built his character up to be a much worse guy than he really is
The whole dating a highschooler thing was presented as very bad from the start of the first graphic novel. Almost everyone constantly gives him shit for it.
Oh so the ones that went "nice" are now shakkin their fingers so that they don't get the pedo finger pointed at them?
Sounds right for 2023.
yeah but they didn't call him a pedophile/demand he goes to jail
isnt Canada's aoc like 16 or somethin?
He's just a douche when you look past his faux-shounen hero who is strong cliches.
>kind of a dick to his friends
>mistreats girls who like him and lies to girls he likes
>jobless, aimless loser who isn't even trying
>freeloader and mooch
>not even a remotely interesting person
Sounds like your typical twenty something.
He's literally me fr
Yeah, that's also the point. Not saying this is bad writing, but by the time O'Malley finished the series, he realized he was writing a story about a douche who needed to grow up.
It's just people being mindbroken that in fiction, characters can have flaws and change over time, experiencing an "arc" of sorts. For some reason Scott Pilgrim and Daria reaaaally confuse people on this front.
This is actually a good Scott pilgrim thread. Seems people here actually read comics and understand the characters.
Don't get used to it