Ready Player One has its first review...

[CaitSeith]

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?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

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?

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.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

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.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

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.

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.

 

[Hawki]

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.

 

[09philj]

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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

 

[Hawki]

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.

 

[RonHiler]

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.

 

[Saelune]

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)

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

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?

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

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.

 

[Saelune]

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?

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

I dont care for Overwatch.

 

[McElroy]

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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

 

[Hawki]

2015 was filled with Back to the Future 2 celebrations, even on mainstream news outlets.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I didn't see any major celebration of Back to the Future at the time.

The 90's doesn't have the same level of iconography and nostalgia despite it technically being fresher in our memory.

Oh come on, really? The 90s gave birth to, among other things, the majority of Disney Renaissance movies (Aladdin, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, etc.), Pixar (Toy Story is the most notable at this point), a whole lot of cartoons, from the Simpsons to South Park, Harry Potter, Power Rangers, etc. That's not even touching on games, or really, touching on that much at all. This may seem like a short list, but seriously, tons of stuff that entered pop culture had its birth in the 90s.

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.

While kids are consuming media in a different way than we did, I think you're underestimating the effects of nostalgia. If you grow up with something, you're going to form a very strong attachment to it, regardless of its nature. Looking at what "kids these days" are into, there's clear patterns in both books and electronic media, at least in the sense that I can easily tell you what's popular. So, for instance, Geronimo Stilton is a book series that had its roots in the 2000s, is among the best selling novel series of all time, and is really, really, REALLY popular with the kids, even into the teens. So, same way Harry Potter is a touchstone of the 90s (in terms of its point of origin), when Gen Z/Gen Alpha are all grown up, chances are they'll have a number of properties to look back on, and Stilton will be one of them.

 

[PureChaos]

I really enjoyed the book so very much looking forward to seeing how they've adapted it to the big screen

 

[votemarvel]

Is it worth watching the movie before reading the book?

I made the mistake of reading Altered Carbon before starting the Netflix adaptation and I have the feeling I would have enjoyed the latter a lot more if I'd watched it first.

 

[Hawki]

I made the mistake of reading Altered Carbon before starting the Netflix adaptation and I have the feeling I would have enjoyed the latter a lot more if I'd watched it first.

This is kind of off-topic but...thoughts? I tried reading the book years ago (didn't like it), but to use another example, while I'm not fond of the Expanse novels, I'm far more partial to The Expanse (on Netflix as well).