Ready Player One

This site is best viewed in a modern browser with JavaScript enabled.

Callagan

Hello.
I just saw the Steven Spielberg movie ''Ready Player One'' and we can see a C64 and a 1541 or 1540...

Howzat

Callagan Nice :-)

EDIT: Is it worth watching?

MIK

Howzat I was thinking the same but also have the feeling we may of seen it all before.

Goclastninja

Looks garbage,just like everything else coming out of vile liberal Hollywood,a bunch of knobs who like to tell us all how to live our lives,the p.c sjw have destroyed so many things I used to love and actors and the like sharing their bull$hit political liberal views has turned me off most of the entertainment industry forever

AndyF

Goclastninja so your not a fan then !

scottyhp

Goclastninja lol you mad -?

JeFurry

Personally I thoroughly enjoyed Ready Player One. It is loaded with retro references - not just games, but music and other cultural iconography. The story is somewhat simplistic, but it's generally a fun romp. It doesn't adhere religiously to the book but updates some ideas and changes others for the different pacing of cinematic presentation… for example the whole thing happens in a matter of days rather than the months or years the book covers. It is completely true to the spirit of the book, but it has been edited and distilled by someone with a little more awareness of screen drama than Ernest Cline, who, with the best will in the world, liked his charts and lists of retro facts. In book form, I loved these, but in film form they wouldn't have worked. What Spielberg, et. al., have produced, for the most part, works well. Don't take it too seriously, but it's fun.

Goclastninja

AndyF hahaha no

Parcival

Spoliers ahead - please read with caution

I read the book several years ago and again more recently. I am a big fan of the book so was looking forward to the film but like so many films before it, the book is the winner here for obvious reasons and some not so obvious.

Yes, there are a lot of 80's references but the book delivers them so much better but this is hardly suprising when you have just 2h20m screen time in which to tell the entire story.

For example, you get to see some shots from inside one of the characters online hideout - the book sets such a scene for this room and what it contains with regards books, games and retro consoles but as a medium the film just can't convey this both in both in it's delivery and time available. To me the whole thing felt rushed.

Was the film true to the spirit of the book? Not really IMHO. The book contains so much detail regards characters, timelines, 80's references and the tasks themselves in obtaining the keys, that a lot of this is lost in translation. To say the film is a distilled version of the book is an understatement in itself.

For example, the first task is totally different from the book - I'm not going to spoil it but all I'll say is the books version is a heck of a lot more cooler and so well laid out. The film has a car race. Meh.

I just feel it could have been so much more - but isn't that the case with a lot of book > film transfers?

6/10

JeFurry

Parcival I think the thing with book-to-film translations is that filming a book isn't as simple as pointing the camera at the hardcover edition. It has to be reinterpreted for a visual medium, for visual rather than introspective narration, for third-person rather than first-person. Also, it has to fit in a single sitting, unless it's a serialised TV programme, in which case it has to be divided into ~42-minute chunks, which is similarly challenging. So while the book had much, much more detail, and much more in the way of reflection and internal monologues from your namesake, those don't usually translate well to film, and that necessitated a change of perspective. It's a little like radio: My wife always says to me that she likes radio dramas, because the pictures are better. It took me a while to understand this. If you see a visual image, it's someone else's, and is unlikely to have the personal relevance that an image from your own imagination would have. Unless a book is illustrated (and this one was not, of course) the same holds true. It's a two-way street, though: books don't have the soundtrack of a film, and having an actor playing a part rather than your own imagination can add details to the part that you might not have done yourself. You trade one set of benefits for another.

With all those concerns, plus the fact that it's a few years since the book was released, and the world of video games and internet communication have moved on rapidly (so a few updates wouldn't go amiss), the challenges needed to be portrayed differently, or changed altogether. I felt that the way in which those alterations were done respected the original mood and intent of the book - indeed, I believe Ernest Cline (the author) approved most if not all of them - and so in that respect I'd say the film remains true to the book's spirit, while not being a slave to its details. I do agree the challenges in the book were better, but depth is nearly always better in a print medium.

But while I don't share your opinion, it's a perfectly valid point of view, and it's no problem if we don't see it quite the same way.

scottyhp

Haven’t seen the movie, looks like it could be good but with heavy doses of cheese factor. It’s Spielberg after all.

Glad C64 is getting some love these days though.

Parcival

JeFurry But while I don't share your opinion, it's a perfectly valid point of view, and it's no problem if we don't see it quite the same way.

Indeed - and that's why its called a forum. What a boring world if we all agreed!

I find a lot of your points valid and especially liked your wife's take on radio - absolutely spot on