Ready Player One

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,409
Reaction score
20,885
Location
The Dark Side
Ready Player One

Release date: March 29, 2018
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Steven Spielberg
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of sci-fi action violence, bloody images, some suggestive material, nudity and language)
Screenwriters: Zak Penn, Ernest Cline
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Adventure
Website: ReadyPlayerOnemovie.com| Facebook| Twitter| Instagram

Starring: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn, T.J. Miller, Simon Pegg, Mark Rylance

Plot Summary: From filmmaker Steven Spielberg comes the science fiction action adventure “Ready Player One,” based on Ernest Cline’s bestseller of the same name. The film is set in 2045, with the world on the brink of chaos and collapse. But the people have found salvation in the OASIS, an expansive virtual reality universe created by the brilliant and eccentric James Halliday (Mark Rylance). When Halliday dies, he leaves his immense fortune to the first person to find a digital Easter egg he has hidden somewhere in the OASIS, sparking a contest that grips the entire world. When an unlikely young hero named Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) decides to join the contest, he is hurled into a breakneck, reality- bending treasure hunt through a fantastical universe of mystery, discovery and danger.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
 

Cheesewater

(ex-Uriah Heep)
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,093
Reaction score
508
Location
Granite Creek
To me, that looks terrible.

Cashing in on what looks like (and sounds like) hundreds of pop-culture references all to glorify a fantasy world that doesn't exist. A soulless adventure.




EDIT: I think I'm a curmudgeon.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,675
Reaction score
14,118
Location
Round Rock, TX
To me, that looks terrible.

Cashing in on what looks like (and sounds like) hundreds of pop-culture references all to glorify a fantasy world that doesn't exist. A soulless adventure.




EDIT: I think I'm a curmudgeon.
Obviously not a book reader, because that's what the book is.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,409
Reaction score
20,885
Location
The Dark Side
Of course. Why anyone would think I meant he wasn't a book reader AT ALL is ludicrous.

Exactly. I am an avid reader and own this book. Likely going to read it next. Anyone who reads - even casually - has heard about this book.
 

Cheesewater

(ex-Uriah Heep)
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,093
Reaction score
508
Location
Granite Creek
I don't know Chaplin's penchant for nuance well enough to do anything but read the words as written.
And I never indicated that I was unaware of the book. The movie appears to lean even more heavily on schlock because of the music and the sound effects and the visuals...you know...stuff you don't get from prose.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,380
I don't know Chaplin's penchant for nuance well enough to do anything but read the words as written.
And I never indicated that I was unaware of the book. The movie appears to lean even more heavily on schlock because of the music and the sound effects and the visuals...you know...stuff you don't get from prose.

ok.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,878
Reaction score
20,465
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
This fixed a lot of the book's atrocious mistakes and horrific writing, but not enough. It was a great 1 hour 45 minute movie stuffed to 2 hours and 20 minutes. Felt it really took off in the middle third.

I was so happy we wouldn't get a giant, moronic monologue to start us off, like we got in the book, because this was a movie and it would be SO MUCH EASIER just to show it all. Then we got a giant, moronic monologue to start the movie off. Sigh. [\spoiler]
 

AsUpRoDiGy

Magnanimous
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Posts
6,404
Reaction score
4,302
Location
Phx
This fixed a lot of the book's atrocious mistakes and horrific writing, but not enough. It was a great 1 hour 45 minute movie stuffed to 2 hours and 20 minutes. Felt it really took off in the middle third.

I was so happy we wouldn't get a giant, moronic monologue to start us off, like we got in the book, because this was a movie and it would be SO MUCH EASIER just to show it all. Then we got a giant, moronic monologue to start the movie off. Sigh. [\spoiler]
So worth a look, or wait for DVD?
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,675
Reaction score
14,118
Location
Round Rock, TX
I loved it. I also loved the book, and was ok with most of the changes that were made. It helps that book's author was a producer and co-wrote the screenplay for the movie.

This movie is tailor-made for multiple viewings because of all the references in there.
 

AsUpRoDiGy

Magnanimous
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Posts
6,404
Reaction score
4,302
Location
Phx
Thought it was very well done. Definitely worth watching on the big screen :)
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,380
@Chaplin @Stout you two know my taste pretty well by now. As a non book reader, am I going to dig this/is I.T worth seeing Theater/paying for 3D?
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,380
The Middle Key was the best section of the movie.

Otherwise... uh... what was at stake?
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,878
Reaction score
20,465
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Absolutely worth it on the big screen.

As long as you don't mind a good 45 minutes or so of bloat, I agree you should catch it on the big screen. This movie is nothing but visuals and references, so yes, it's worth it.

Like the book, it's really bad writing and is reliant on nostalgia. Unlike the book, the writing is better, and doesn't SOLELY rely on nostalgia--it has the visual angle, which is huge.

Cheese, it seems like you already did go to see it, so no advice needed :)
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,380
As long as you don't mind a good 45 minutes or so of bloat, I agree you should catch it on the big screen. This movie is nothing but visuals and references, so yes, it's worth it.

Like the book, it's really bad writing and is reliant on nostalgia. Unlike the book, the writing is better, and doesn't SOLELY rely on nostalgia--it has the visual angle, which is huge.

Cheese, it seems like you already did go to see it, so no advice needed :)

I fell asleep at one point.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,876
Reaction score
51,178
Location
SoCal
Huh I’m an avid reader across multiple disciplines and I enjoyed the book. I’m surprised at Stout’s criticism of the book.

The movie fell short for me in a few areas:

1. Real life didn’t seem grim enough for me.

2. The Oasis didn’t seem expansive enough for me. Not well enough developed

3. Felt like it was written too much for kids. IOI was too old school Disney goofyish villain for me.

Was entertained but hopeful for better. Visually prettt awesome though.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,878
Reaction score
20,465
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Huh I’m an avid reader across multiple disciplines and I enjoyed the book. I’m surprised at Stout’s criticism of the book.

The movie fell short for me in a few areas:

1. Real life didn’t seem grim enough for me.

2. The Oasis didn’t seem expansive enough for me. Not well enough developed

3. Felt like it was written too much for kids. IOI was too old school Disney goofyish villain for me.

Was entertained but hopeful for better. Visually prettt awesome though.

Oh, nobody I know--even people that like and love the book--think it is well-written. They just dig the nostalgia.

At one point, there were five ginormous paragraphs that all started exactly the same way, followed by really bad info-dump descriptions written at a fourth-grade level. Giant monologues of telling, simple info-dumps, especially to start the story. A weak sauce narrative and a beige MC. The main character is a cardboard cutout without any, well, character to him. Ultimate example of a Mary Sue character (or Marty Stu). This nobody with nothing just happens to know exactly the right stuff at exactly the right times all the time, every time, even though there are millions of gunters who devoted as much time to research. There's no tension in the book because of it. At one point, the MC sets up an obstacle, where he couldn't access something and it was a huge problem--then literally solves it in the next sentence, because oh, it's cool, I bought some codes. Passive voice pervades the whole thing. Art3mis and their relationship is awful fantasy fulfillment. The Japanese pair are horribly racist caricatures. The black lesbian thing read as if the editor panicked and said "this isn't in the least a diverse book--quick, change her to as many demographics as you possibly can!" MC's only family and a good friend of his get blown up, and he's like, "Oh, that sucks" for one line, and that's it. And can you manage to score worse than an F at the Bechdel Test? The book certainly tried.

And that's just the immediate stuff I remember off the top of my head. I was super hyped to read it, and when I got into it, simply couldn't believe people were raving about it. Then again, people rave about poorly written trash all the time (50 Shades of Shyte, Twilight, etc), so I wasn't surprised in the end. If it scratches an itch (housewife fantasy, tweeny angst, or, in this case, nerdboy nostalgia), it will find a niche. My friend joked that they need a female version, because it was so male-centric.

Like I said, the movie cleaned up a TON of these problems. Though I didn't think it was great, the movie was a million times better than the book.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,876
Reaction score
51,178
Location
SoCal
Oh, nobody I know--even people that like and love the book--think it is well-written. They just dig the nostalgia.

At one point, there were five ginormous paragraphs that all started exactly the same way, followed by really bad info-dump descriptions written at a fourth-grade level. Giant monologues of telling, simple info-dumps, especially to start the story. A weak sauce narrative and a beige MC. The main character is a cardboard cutout without any, well, character to him. Ultimate example of a Mary Sue character (or Marty Stu). This nobody with nothing just happens to know exactly the right stuff at exactly the right times all the time, every time, even though there are millions of gunters who devoted as much time to research. There's no tension in the book because of it. At one point, the MC sets up an obstacle, where he couldn't access something and it was a huge problem--then literally solves it in the next sentence, because oh, it's cool, I bought some codes. Passive voice pervades the whole thing. Art3mis and their relationship is awful fantasy fulfillment. The Japanese pair are horribly racist caricatures. The black lesbian thing read as if the editor panicked and said "this isn't in the least a diverse book--quick, change her to as many demographics as you possibly can!" MC's only family and a good friend of his get blown up, and he's like, "Oh, that sucks" for one line, and that's it. And can you manage to score worse than an F at the Bechdel Test? The book certainly tried.

And that's just the immediate stuff I remember off the top of my head. I was super hyped to read it, and when I got into it, simply couldn't believe people were raving about it. Then again, people rave about poorly written trash all the time (50 Shades of Shyte, Twilight, etc), so I wasn't surprised in the end. If it scratches an itch (housewife fantasy, tweeny angst, or, in this case, nerdboy nostalgia), it will find a niche. My friend joked that they need a female version, because it was so male-centric.

Like I said, the movie cleaned up a TON of these problems. Though I didn't think it was great, the movie was a million times better than the book.


Hmm perhaps because I picked up the book years ago in a airport bookstore for a cross country flight before it had any real acclaim I had low expectations and the nostalgia carried me throughout the flight without my critical radar going off. I have a much higher pain threshold when flying (think Carl Hiaasen “mysteries” - quotes purposeful).
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
534,771
Posts
5,246,092
Members
6,273
Latest member
sarahmoose
Top