Ready Player One has its first review...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

...and you can take a peek at it here.

Turns out an early viewing was shown out in Texas, and AngryJoe got a chance to see it.

I admit, I'm kinda hyped here. Really looking forward to it.

First review? There's plenty of reviews up for this already. Has a 75% ranking on RT last I checked.

Anyway, Joe liked it (not surprised, given Joe's tastes), so, um, yay? TBH, I don't care overmuch, since I'm not that fond of the novel, and despite being directed by Spielberg, the film hasn't shown me anything to indicate that my gripes will be alleviated (except maybe for the excessive references, which can at least be shown visually rather than bogging down the story). People like it, more power to them, but not something I'm hyped for myself.

The first video review then? Also he is so lucky... I'm totally hyped for this movie, but then I liked the book, so what do I know? Though transferring the novel to the silver screen was already a tricky task considering the licenced movies involved...

I never care for fanfiction.

Saelune:
I never care for fanfiction.

Fanfiction is fine, but it probably shouldn't step outside the boundary of the interwebs.

Cool.

So when does the first real video review go up?

Yyeaaah...

Tar and feather me all you want, but I'm not exactly rushing to the theatre on the basis of an opinion from a man who called Suicide Squad "an awesome fuckin' movie".

Oh, this is a Spielberg movie? Didn't know that.

Might give this a shot then. I don't like everything he's done as a director, but the man does have a track record for movies that are at least competent.

Chimpzy:
Oh, this is a Spielberg movie? Didn't know that.

Might give this a shot then. I don't like everything he's done, but the man does have a track record for movies that are at least competent.

He produced the Transformers Movies...

But he directed Saving Private Ryan.

Samtemdo8:

Chimpzy:
Oh, this is a Spielberg movie? Didn't know that.

Might give this a shot then. I don't like everything he's done, but the man does have a track record for movies that are at least competent.

He produced the Transformers Movies...

But he directed Saving Private Ryan.

I meant stuff he's done as a director. Should probably edit that in for clarity.

Don't like everything, but they're usually competently made movies.

Few things stuck out to me.
1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

2. Its Speilberg's breathless homage...to himself.

3. Overwatch characters.

Yeah, I'm not going to watch this meme movie. It'll be dated in 6 months, unwatchable in 12, forgotten in 18.

Silentpony:

1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter. Why bother making a movie adaptation of a book if you're barely using anything from the book? Just seems like cheap publicity, riding the book's name for a completely different movie.
Like how Stephen King hates the Shining movie, because it barely follows the book. Would have worked so much batter as a stand-alone, completely separate horror movie.

Sounds like Spielberg wanted to remind everyone how great he is, so he found something he could transform into a honor of himself.

I'm just praying it doesn't follow the book and takes some liberties. I haaaaaaaaaate the book.

Silentpony:
Few things stuck out to me.
1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

2. Its Speilberg's breathless homage...to himself.

3. Overwatch characters.

Yeah, I'm not going to watch this meme movie. It'll be dated in 6 months, unwatchable in 12, forgotten in 18.

Is said Overwatch charcaters full fledged characters?

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:
Few things stuck out to me.
1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

2. Its Speilberg's breathless homage...to himself.

3. Overwatch characters.

Yeah, I'm not going to watch this meme movie. It'll be dated in 6 months, unwatchable in 12, forgotten in 18.

Is said Overwatch charcaters full fledged characters?

No idea. The review just says that some of the Oasis avatars are Overwatch characters, probably Tracer as she's the more marketable and safe of the lot. No idea if she's a main character, side or background.
Just the fact they have one or more of them is enough for me to show how 'with the times' and dated this movie is. Its a movie that takes place in the future, that happens to have current day pop culture icons and fandoms, like how our real world pop-culture is just Magilla the Gorilla and Buck Rodgers memes.

I hope it's a good movie but I don't really give a shit what Angry Joe has to say about it. That guy is as dumb as a box of sandals with socks.

I just imagine how much of a rights nightmare this is.

RaikuFA:
I just imagine how much of a rights nightmare this is.

It's mostly fair use, as it's not like you can make up pop culture references on your own -> thus it becomes necessary to borrow them. Also I imagine that since these references are in positive light, the IP holders would gladly allow their use. I mean, who would want to be left out of a blockbuster pop culture fiesta?

McElroy:

RaikuFA:
I just imagine how much of a rights nightmare this is.

It's mostly fair use, as it's not like you can make up pop culture references on your own -> thus it becomes necessary to borrow them. Also I imagine that since these references are in positive light, the IP holders would gladly allow their use. I mean, who would want to be left out of a blockbuster pop culture fiesta?

One thing is references, and other is using the unaltered names and images of copyrighted characters in a big budget production.

Silentpony:

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter.

If you will never read the book, would you watch the movie if it followed the book? You prefer to have a bad movie over everyone having a good movie?

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

CaitSeith:

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter.

If you will never read the book, would you watch the movie if it followed the book? You prefer to have a bad movie over everyone having a good movie?

I prefer to have an original movie, rather than a shallow adaptation movie. Even if I don't know the source material, if those who do watch a movie adaptation and are like 'yeah, none of that was in the book, and barely anything from the book is in this movie' I'm less likely to think its a movie made for the fans of the book, and more likely to think the book tie-in was added later.

Like take the Starship Troopers movie. Barely any connection to the book. In fact the original screenplay was called Encounter at Outpost 13, and had nothing to do with the ST Book. Any tie-ins was added much later, after production was underway. In that respect, its a shitty adaptation of the book, and it was only added for marketing.

Silentpony:

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter. Why bother making a movie adaptation of a book if you're barely using anything from the book? Just seems like cheap publicity, riding the book's name for a completely different movie.
Like how Stephen King hates the Shining movie, because it barely follows the book. Would have worked so much batter as a stand-alone, completely separate horror movie.

Sounds like Spielberg wanted to remind everyone how great he is, so he found something he could transform into a honor of himself.

Yeah but have you actually read The Shining? The movie is so much better than the book.

Kenbo Slice:

Silentpony:

CaitSeith:

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter. Why bother making a movie adaptation of a book if you're barely using anything from the book? Just seems like cheap publicity, riding the book's name for a completely different movie.
Like how Stephen King hates the Shining movie, because it barely follows the book. Would have worked so much batter as a stand-alone, completely separate horror movie.

Sounds like Spielberg wanted to remind everyone how great he is, so he found something he could transform into a honor of himself.

Yeah but have you actually read The Shining? The movie is so much better than the book.

Eh, tomato potato. I don't think King is a good writer to begin with, but I have read the book. The movie and the book might as well be completely different IPs. Aside from the location itself, everything is different. The character personalities are different, their appearance is different, the way the ghosts manifest is different, the way they react to ghosts is different, the moral of the story is different.

Quality of each individual piece of art is subjective, sure, but the Shining movie is a bad adaptation of the book. It would have worked so much better named Jack Nicholson Hams is up in a Spooky Hotel.

Silentpony:

No idea. The review just says that some of the Oasis avatars are Overwatch characters, probably Tracer as she's the more marketable and safe of the lot. No idea if she's a main character, side or background.
Just the fact they have one or more of them is enough for me to show how 'with the times' and dated this movie is. Its a movie that takes place in the future, that happens to have current day pop culture icons and fandoms, like how our real world pop-culture is just Magilla the Gorilla and Buck Rodgers memes.

No, not really. The book is an excercise in nostalgia. Primarily 80s nostalgia, but it extends as far as the 2000s as far as the references go. So for a story that takes place in the 2040s, nostalgia for the 2010s would still exist, even if Halliday's fixation (or rather, the author's) was on the 80s. Overwatch is just one part of the geekosphere.

Now I'm not fond of the novel, in part because of its reliance on pop culture stuff, but if anything, Overwatch means that the movie will be dated far later than the book, since people will forget about the 80s sooner than the 2010s.

Silentpony:

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

1. The movie doesn't follow the book at all.

Well, that's a ticket seller for me.

See its not for me. I haven't read the book, and I never will, but its the principle of the matter. Why bother making a movie adaptation of a book if you're barely using anything from the book?

Because the book has an interesting premise and some good ideas in it, it's just also horribly written, badly paced garbage with appalling sexual politics.

Hawki:
Now I'm not fond of the novel, in part because of its reliance on pop culture stuff, but if anything, Overwatch means that the movie will be dated far later than the book, since people will forget about the 80s sooner than the 2010s.

You sure about that? Overwatch is still very new, so we won't know how or if it will be remembered in 20 years or so. I mean, look at Angry Birds... You don't really hear people talk about that much anymore. I have a feeling though that by that time properties like Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, and probably even Akira will still have a significant presence in pop culture.

Casual Shinji:
You sure about that? Overwatch is still very new, so we won't know how or if it will be remembered in 20 years or so. I mean, look at Angry Birds... You don't really hear people talk about that much anymore. I have a feeling though that by that time properties like Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, and probably even Akira will still have a significant presence in pop culture.

Yeah, I don't hear people talk about Angry Birds much...but I don't hear people talk about any of those other IPs either. Maybe Ghostbusters, but even then, it's mainly remembered for the fallout over the third film. And based on what "kids these days" are into from the libraries I work at, I do see Angry Birds DVDs passing my way every so often. So, it's still around.

Point is that as an aggregate, as time goes on, people will remember the 2010s more than the 1980s, simply on the basis that people born in/before the 80s will die before those born in/before the 2010s. Basic biology and all that.

Kenbo Slice:
Yeah but have you actually read The Shining? The movie is so much better than the book.

You and I must have completely different tastes then. The movie, just like everything Kubrick did, was complete shite. (Kubrick is the most over-rated director in history as far as I'm concerned, Full Metal Jacket was alright, I guess, but otherwise his movies were all completely forgettable [and yes that includes 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, and Clockwork Orange, why people go all gaga over those flicks is beyond my ability to understand]). The book, on the other hand, was a good read.

Ready Player One: Meh. Maybe when it comes to HBO I'll give it a minute of my time.

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:
Now I'm not fond of the novel, in part because of its reliance on pop culture stuff, but if anything, Overwatch means that the movie will be dated far later than the book, since people will forget about the 80s sooner than the 2010s.

You sure about that? Overwatch is still very new, so we won't know how or if it will be remembered in 20 years or so. I mean, look at Angry Birds... You don't really hear people talk about that much anymore. I have a feeling though that by that time properties like Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, and probably even Akira will still have a significant presence in pop culture.

Overwatch will stay known cause Blizzard is so up its own ass, that as long as Blizzard exists, references to all their stuff will exist in all its other properties.

(Admittedly, if I liked Blizzard and all its properties, Id be ok with it, but I hate everything they do except Diablo 3...which lets you have your characters run around wearing Mercy's wings)

Saelune:

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:
Now I'm not fond of the novel, in part because of its reliance on pop culture stuff, but if anything, Overwatch means that the movie will be dated far later than the book, since people will forget about the 80s sooner than the 2010s.

You sure about that? Overwatch is still very new, so we won't know how or if it will be remembered in 20 years or so. I mean, look at Angry Birds... You don't really hear people talk about that much anymore. I have a feeling though that by that time properties like Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, and probably even Akira will still have a significant presence in pop culture.

Overwatch will stay known cause Blizzard is so up its own ass, that as long as Blizzard exists, references to all their stuff will exist in all its other properties.

(Admittedly, if I liked Blizzard and all its properties, Id be ok with it, but I hate everything they do except Diablo 3...which lets you have your characters run around wearing Mercy's wings)

Diablo 3?

The game that almost singlehandedly killed the Diablo franchise? Arguably the worse thing Blizz has made until Warlords of Draenor?

Are you into Overwatch or find it overrated?

McElroy:

RaikuFA:
I just imagine how much of a rights nightmare this is.

It's mostly fair use, as it's not like you can make up pop culture references on your own -> thus it becomes necessary to borrow them. Also I imagine that since these references are in positive light, the IP holders would gladly allow their use. I mean, who would want to be left out of a blockbuster pop culture fiesta?

Not really. The kind of cameos this movie has shouldn't qualify as fair use, and licensing issues nearly killed the project at multiple points. Essentially, they had to write the script with cameo-shaped holes in it, then throw fishing lines out to see whose rights they could get before deciding what characters they'd actually have show up to fill those holes. Like, they'd have a part in the script labelled "Giant Monster" and be tossing up whether it's King Kong or Cthulhu or the Iron Giant.

Overwatch would've been an easy get because the game is still relatively new and Blizzard would want to increase its exposure, but even considering the free advertising, people just don't license out their IPs for free. WB almost certainly spent millions of dollars on licensing alone.

Samtemdo8:

Saelune:

Casual Shinji:
You sure about that? Overwatch is still very new, so we won't know how or if it will be remembered in 20 years or so. I mean, look at Angry Birds... You don't really hear people talk about that much anymore. I have a feeling though that by that time properties like Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, and probably even Akira will still have a significant presence in pop culture.

Overwatch will stay known cause Blizzard is so up its own ass, that as long as Blizzard exists, references to all their stuff will exist in all its other properties.

(Admittedly, if I liked Blizzard and all its properties, Id be ok with it, but I hate everything they do except Diablo 3...which lets you have your characters run around wearing Mercy's wings)

Diablo 3?

The game that almost singlehandedly killed the Diablo franchise? Arguably the worse thing Blizz has made until Warlords of Draenor?

Are you into Overwatch or find it overrated?

Killed? Whether or not you think it is good, it did not kill it.

I dont care for Overwatch.

bastardofmelbourne:
Even considering the free advertising, people just don't license out their IPs for free. WB almost certainly spent millions of dollars on licensing alone.

Yes, I think I forgot to look at it with the whole IP rights system in mind. After all WB no doubt wants to hold on to theirs and thus making a case for more lenient use of IPs - even as references - would likely bite them too.

I think fair use could still apply with proper defense, maybe if the movie stuck with the book's eighties stuff instead of coming up with whatever suited them better. But yeah, the big picture matters more in this case.

Hawki:
Yeah, I don't hear people talk about Angry Birds much...but I don't hear people talk about any of those other IPs either. Maybe Ghostbusters, but even then, it's mainly remembered for the fallout over the third film. And based on what "kids these days" are into from the libraries I work at, I do see Angry Birds DVDs passing my way every so often. So, it's still around.

Point is that as an aggregate, as time goes on, people will remember the 2010s more than the 1980s, simply on the basis that people born in/before the 80s will die before those born in/before the 2010s. Basic biology and all that.

Kids yeah, but in pop culture and in the public conscience these properties are still very prevalent and recognizable. I mean, 2015 was filled with Back to the Future 2 celebrations, even on mainstream news outlets. The 90's doesn't have the same level of iconography and nostalgia despite it technically being fresher in our memory. And this is coming from someone who's pretty sick and tired of the 80's nostalgia binge the modern media's been on.

We'll see in about 30 years if we're getting references in movies (or whatever's going to pass for entertainment by then) to Tracer, but I wouldn't bet on it. But then I don't know if the manner in which kids today consume media will cause it to take root in the way it did for kids growing up in the 80's and 90's. We are living in an age where our attention span is getting wrung through the wringer with the amount of media that's unleashed upon us daily.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here