Ready Player One film (spoilers)

[FaxModem1]

I saw this film yesterday with a buddy. It was okay. It felt, as Brad Jones put it, like Roger Rabbit if it focused on the references and didn't have heart. I haven't read the book yet, so I have questions that I hope can be answered.

The film seems like it went through some rewrites. The movie makes it seem like the world is the corporate dystopia it is due to the Oasis game, and the apathy towards the real world because of the ease of the fake one. However, the film only makes a passing condemnation of this, with the plot of the clues being about wasting life, and include a pat line in the ending about restricting Oasis time for players. It also seems like people are still struggling everywhere, starving, with a polluted world. At the same time, the film celebrates all these pop culture icons and places used in the game and by the players. It seemed contradictory.

It was also unclear if the evil corporation IOI was the same company that ran the game, making me wonder why they didn't cheat by putting the game into maintenance and figuring out the Easter eggs for themselves. Or if it's a separate company, why it's openly allowing a company trying to take it over in such a blatant fashion.

There's also Wade's selfishness, which is never really commented on. He wins a small fortune from getting the keys, and he doesn't even buy anything for his family, to improve their living situation (well, before they die, that is). Instead, he buys cool in-game items for his character, and a cool new suit for himself in real life. This is never called out by anyone, especially since the film has an earlier scene where his Step-uncle wasted all their hard earned cash for a better home to buff up his own character, and then lost it all, showing that winnings could be used in the real world. I guess it's only okay when the hero does it?

Either way, it was only okay to me, and could have used some revisions.

What did you think?

[Sea Skimmer]

I suggest anyone who hasn't read the book and yet clicked on this... go read the book first. You could read it in 72 hours if you wanted. It will be better that way.

Didn't see the movie personally because I'm not hearing much to make me want to go see it. This is definitely a book that would need a lot of script treatments to adapt well, and I do not get the impression that Spielberg spent a lot of time doing so. Nor do I really feel like his style would be best, and the book itself references Spielberg too much which became a known issue in the production. It seems like instead of fixing the books problems Spielberg magnified them. A pity if true.

As far as Wade and his family goes, in the book he leaves town after his home is blown up because everyone he did ever care about is dead, his adapted family treated him like trash, and he has good reason to want other people to think he is dead so they don't commit more murders. Leaving his past behind is entirely reasonable. This Step-uncle thing sounds like 100% Spielberg invention, I recall no such character from the book doing anything but be scum. And well, not a good sign for the appeal of the movie to book fans in general.

[Zor]

It's a fun movie and giving the supporting cast more of a role in the story was a good point.

Zor

[Meest]

Way too dumbed down and predictable, even changing deaths or any real consquence for typical popcorn ending. Potential wasted on hollow joyride.

[Mlenk]

As someone who had never even heard of the book (much less read it), my wife and I had a lot of fun watching it.