Ready Player One | March 29, 2018 | Spielberg directing | No untagged spoilers allowed

[a2k]

On 2/18/2018 at 8:48 AM, That One Guy said:

 

It’s not #thatbad

edit out cruise's cringeworthy imaginary friend and i agree it's #notthatbad.

[WittyUsername]

Out of all the major movies being released in 2018, this one seems the most like an uncertainty. I have no idea if this movie will go the way of films like Tomorrowland and The BFG, or if it’ll be a breakout hit on the count of the nostalgia factor. It’s a pretty big question mark at this point. 

[MovieMan89]

This just feels so completely off the radar to me. I really don't think most of the GA has any idea it exists. 

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

This just feels so completely off the radar to me. I really don't think most of the GA has any idea it exists. 

The trailer has been playing in theaters since what, It? I'm sure the GA is aware about it. Interest is another story.

[75Live]

1 minute ago, WrathOfHan said:

The trailer has been playing in theaters since what, It? I'm sure the GA is aware about it. Interest is another story.

 

exactly.  People know it exists but how much they care is another thing entirely

[75Live]

just saw this spot online and thought it was pretty good in explaining the movie more

 

 

[Hiccup23]

I am feeling excited for this but I just don't  see the buzz there

 

50M/130M

[75Live]

2 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

I am feeling excited for this but I just don't  see the buzz there

 

50M/130M

 

that's pretty much my whole take even down to the prediction.

[grim22]

5 minutes ago, 75Live said:

 

that's pretty much my whole take even down to the prediction.

I've heard it's actually pretty good. It's begun screening last week and a couple of people I know really enjoyed it.

[Alli]

8 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

I am feeling excited for this but I just don't  see the buzz there

 

50M/130M

No buzz, but a 50M OW? That would be a great number. I'm feelin less optimistic

[marveldcfox]

4 minutes ago, grim22 said:

I've heard it's actually pretty good. It's begun screening last week and a couple of people I know really enjoyed it.

People said same thing about BFG. Didn't help its boxoffice. 

 

Spielfberg should continue making oscar bait films. He is actually much better with those, nowadays. Leave big budget blockbuster filmmaking to young, hungry and talented directors. 

[75Live]

14 minutes ago, grim22 said:

I've heard it's actually pretty good. It's begun screening last week and a couple of people I know really enjoyed it.

 

at this point, I am sure any positive news for this is what the studio wants   

[MovieMan89]

Spielberg's brand of blockbuster is dated, and that shows in the marketing for this (and The BFG). Not saying it's "bad" or "wrong", but it's not the kind of tentpole filmmaking that sells these days. 

[SchumacherFTW]

There's a nationwide advanced screening here in the UK on March 19th, looks like they're confident they have a crowd pleaser on their hands. 

[Porthos]

3 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

People said same thing about BFG. Didn't help its boxoffice. 

 

Spielfberg should continue making oscar bait films. He is actually much better with those, nowadays. Leave big budget blockbuster filmmaking to young, hungry and talented directors. 

The problem with BFG is that the marketing was abysmal. Not only did the film look ugly, but the marketing was just completely unsure who to actually market the film to/what they were selling.  Really rare for Disney to misfire like that, but just goes to show no marketing arm is perfect.

 

RPO, while it may be good or not, at least knows the type of film it is/who to market it to.  That alone should nip the BFG comparisons in the bud.

[MovieMan89]

10 minutes ago, Porthos said:

The problem with BFG is that the marketing was abysmal. Not only did the film look ugly, but the marketing was just completely unsure who to actually market the film to/what they were selling.  Really rare for Disney to misfire like that, but just goes to show no marketing arm is perfect.

 

RPO, while it may be good or not, at least knows the type of film it is/who to market it to.  That alone should nip the BFG comparisons in the bud.

Lol, what? You certain you didn't mix the two film's marketing up? That's word for word what I'd say about RPO's marketing. BFG was very clearly marketed to families and it looked like a Disney fantasy film visually. RPO looks niche as hell and the Oasis CGI is uncanny valley to the max and not visually appealing. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by MovieMan89

[Porthos]

13 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Lol, what? You certain you didn't mix the two film's marketing up? That's word for word what I'd say about RPO's marketing. BFG was very clearly marketed to families and it looked like a Disney fantasy film visually. RPO looks niche as hell and the Oasis CGI is uncanny valley to the max and not visually appealing. 

Nope.  I was bitching about BFG's marketing back when it was released.   Now I can't say I was proven right about BFG since no one really knows why a film underperforms.  But I certainly wasn't proven wrong.

[MovieMan89]

3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Nope.  I was bitching about BFG's marketing back when it was released.   Now I can't say I was proven right about BFG since no one really knows why a film underperforms.  But I certainly wasn't proven wrong.

Well you certainly weren't wrong about it not being appealing, but I feel like the marketing was very clearly targeted at families. They just rejected it. 

[WittyUsername]

I doubt RPO will perform as badly as BFG, but it’s definitely fair to say that Spielberg has been doing much better with Oscar bait movies for the past 10 years. If RPO disappoints, Spielberg will most likely be done directing big crowd pleasers. 

[Porthos]

12 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Well you certainly weren't wrong about it not being appealing, but I feel like the marketing was very clearly targeted at families. They just rejected it. 

I might have to dredge up my posts to make sure, but I believe my complaint wasn't so much that they weren't targeting families, per se, but how they were going about it and what type of family film this was.  After all, 'family film' is a broad church with many different types of movie within it and different marketing strategies.

 

So when I said they didn't know who they were targeting, I meant more along the lines of targeting the pre-teen demo vs parents of small children vs tweeners vs traditional all encompassing family film (and that's taking gender targeting out of the equation as well).

 

To me, the film should have been targeted at parents with young children (4 to 8 years old) and I'm not sure they did as I think they aimed more at other family demos that just flat out rejected it.

 

*thinks*

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was my complaint.  Not only did it look weird, it's that I thought they weren't targeting the right family demo.