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

[Jonwo]

Just now, Goffe said:

Williams not scoring this? 

Williams was too busy with Star Wars and The Post.

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

 

Liked for the MM gif.

[WittyUsername]

I could see this movie potentially pulling a Kong: Skull Island and beating the low box office tracking if it’s good, but that’s still an if. It all depends on whether or not Spielberg still has it in him when it comes to blockbusters. 

[a2k]

1 hour ago, Chewy said:

 

[Arlborn]

So this movie got a lot of attention all of sudden when just a few days ago nobody was talking about it.

 

Yeah, I know why they're talking about it but excuse me if I still count it as a win. Now only if the movie would deliver... Fingers crossed.

[UNDERDOG]

I still don't know what the hell happened here this week to cause the buzz to become so negative. All because of some stupid posters? Who cares. They're just for fun.

And I don't mean on here but everywhere else. Mostly twitter.....mainly twitter.

Edited March 9, 2018 by UNDERDOG

[MCKillswitch123]

12 minutes ago, UNDERDOG said:

I still don't know what the hell happened here this week to cause the buzz to become so negative. All because of some stupid posters? Who cares. They're just for fun.

And I don't mean on here but everywhere else. Mostly twitter.....mainly twitter.

A lot of people were never on board w/this to begin with. The source material isn't even as much a true piece of worthy fictional literature, as it is an adult male jerking off his nostalgia fantasies and endless pop culture references. It's literally trying to sell you pop culture references as replacements to a real plot/story. And I'll say this: I was entertained reading the book, but it's by no means what I'd call "a good story".

 

Also, a lot of folks didn't like the trailers either. So it was already off to a great start. The horrible posters only sealed the deal on people's bad buzz.

 

If Spielberg doesn't hit us w/his 90's Midas Touch as far as quality goes, this is going to be looking real bad for them.

Edited March 9, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[UNDERDOG]

10 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

A lot of people were never on board w/this to begin with. The source material isn't even as much a true piece of worthy fictional literature, as it is an adult male jerking off his nostalgia fantasies and endless pop culture references. It's literally trying to sell you pop culture references as replacements to a real plot/story. And I'll say this: I was entertained reading the book, but it's by no means what I'd call "a good story".

 

Also, a lot of folks didn't like the trailers either. So it was already off to a great start. The horrible posters only sealed the deal on people's bad buzz.

 

If Spielberg doesn't hit us w/his 90's Midas Touch as far as quality goes, this is going to be looking real bad for them.

 

I know about the book being negatively received, but I thought people would give it the benefit of the doubt because of Spielberg.

 

I had thought the trailers were well received. I didn't see anything wrong with them to cause such a negative buzz from the start. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by UNDERDOG

[MCKillswitch123]

16 minutes ago, UNDERDOG said:

 

I know about the book being negatively received, but I thought people would give it the benefit of the doubt because of Spielberg.

 

I had thought the trailers were well received. I didn't see anything wrong with them to cause such a negative buzz from the start. 

They were sorta well recieved, but there is a vocal portion of the audience that was turned off by them too. Maybe because of the PS2-era CGI on the OASIS (which doesn't bother me because it helps make the distinction between real world and the video game; albeit it probably would've made more sense to make everything look photorealistic as well, since that's part of the purpose of virtual reality anyway), maybe because it looked like it would be very similar to the book, etc..

[UNDERDOG]

1 minute ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

They were sorta well recieved, but there is a vocal portion of the audience that was turned off by them too. Maybe because of the PS2-era CGI on the OASIS (which doesn't bother me because it helps make the distinction between real world and the video game; albeit it probably would've made more sense to make everything look photorealistic as well, since that's part of the purpose of virtual reality anyway), maybe because it looked like it would be very similar to the book, etc..

 

I guess I can see the PS2-era CGI turn off some folks. I find it incredibly stylish which I kinda like. 

 

Well, hopefully the film turns out great. I'm not an 80's kid by any means, but it seems to be filling out an epic-like demeanor that I've been itching for, for awhile.

[dashrendar44]

I have a pet theory about the lack of buzz. To cut it short, when it comes to "videogame movies" or movies about virtual reality, the first thing general audience don't want to pay for is watching a character playing a videogame too far removed from the stakes. They want to be inside that videogame world as intra-diegetically as possible. Like would you rather see a Call Of Duty or Halo movie about a character that plays an avatar into that world or really be in that world watching characters living and breathing in that world "for real"? I choose the latter.

 

It's like Tomb Raider not being about Lara Croft, a living and breathing character in her world, but being about someone playing as a Lara Croft avatar projected in her virtual world. Nobody is compelled or drawn by that except a small niche (those that waste hours of their lives watching a dweeb live feeding his videogame sessions) because it removes a layer of involvement in the narrative. Jumanji remake literally put those characters in the game, they aren't safe outside the game, they want to get out before it's too late.

 

I think it's a tough nut to crack because of that inner shift in POV. Matrix got away with it because the videogame aspect was some Baudrillard infused reflexion on reality and society as an artificial construct the main character wants to destroy and break free. Edge Of Tomorrow played with videogame mechanisms and tropes to serve its story but it kinda flopped. Avatar is the rare movie that straddled that fence successfully (the movie works as a videogaming analogy about a feeble guy projecting himself into an heroic avatar in a fantasy-like world) but it didn't make Pandora, a virtual world, general audience wouldn't have given a shit otherwise.

Edited March 11, 2018 by dashrendar44

[Valonqar]

RPO has shit trailers. Maybe they appeal to the book fans, but as someone who never read it, I have zero interest in ever seeing the movie, or reading the source based on the previews. It strikes me as Divergent inside a video game. No thanks. And movies are made for the uninitiated. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Valonqar

[HockeyPads]

I've never read the book and I honestly thought the trailers were great. Audiences seem to respond well to them when they play in theaters (from what I've seen).

 

Many people on the internet have been dead set against this movie day one, mostly because their hate for the book is seeping into the movie.

[WittyUsername]

There was always some snark leveled towards the movie, but it definitely seems like those badly photoshopped (intentional or not) posters played a role in souring the already polarizing feelings towards the film. 

[YLF]

I think one good thing about movie pass is that more people are willing to see movies like this that they might be ambivalent about seeing. Because if it ends up being good that creates good wom.

 

I would not be seeing this without movie pass, but glad I will be able to because of it. 

[Chewy]

14 hours ago, Arlborn said:

So this movie got a lot of attention all of sudden when just a few days ago nobody was talking about it.

 

Yeah, I know why they're talking about it but excuse me if I still count it as a win. Now only if the movie would deliver... Fingers crossed.

 

It's the Berg ppl here were dying to stan for this, it just looks like trash

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, Chewy said:

 

It's the Berg ppl here were dying to stan for this, it just looks like trash

 

Fair enough.

 

One man's trash though...

[AniNate]

Spielberg is why I still hold a tiny sliver of doubt that it will be terrible. If the director didn't hold such an impressive pedigree, I would be 100% sure this will be awful rather than 90%. 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by tribefan695

[Jonwo]

9 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

Spielberg is why I still hold a tiny sliver of doubt that it will be terrible. If the director didn't hold such an impressive pedigree, I would be 100% sure this will be awful rather than 90%. 

 

 

Spielberg's lowest critical dud was Hook and that wasn't even a bad film. If it has similar critical reception to The BFG, Tintin or WOTW then it likely not going to be terrible

[Dementeleus]

17 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

Spielberg is why I still hold a tiny sliver of doubt that it will be terrible. If the director didn't hold such an impressive pedigree, I would be 100% sure this will be awful rather than 90%. 

 

 

 

Spielberg is how I became uninterested in it.  

 

5 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Spielberg's lowest critical dud was Hook and that wasn't even a bad film. If it has similar critical reception to The BFG, Tintin or WOTW then it likely not going to be terrible

 

HOOK is awful. Awful awful awful.

 

(P.S. I love Spielberg, don't @ me)