The Sword and Laser discussion

The trailer. Looks pretty great. Go ahead and shout out everything you recognize. This will be the Who Framed Roger Rabbit? of this decade.

https://youtu.be/LiK2fhOY0nE

*cross fingers* Hope they don't mess it up in the translation. =)

That trailer confirmed that I'm SO not the audience for that film. But then I didn't like the book, so... eh. It's just 80s fan wank. "DUDE! Iron giant!", "80s Reference!", etc.

Even given that, I thought the trailer did a crappy job at communicating what the film was about at all. It started fine, with the stacks, etc... but then it was just like Michael Bay took over and said "SHOW EXPLOSION!" - if someone didn't know the outline of the plot they'd have no idea at all what the movie was about.

felt like that movie with Shai labuff

Looks cool. Maybe I should read the book.

Tamahome wrote: "Looks cool. Maybe I should read the book."

I suspect the movie will be way better than the book.

The trailer has unleashed a lot of pent-up frustration at the novel on social media. Seems a lot of people felt the book was shallow and reflective of the the worst parts of geek culture, but they never spoke up. The trailer gives them a chance, and they're unleashing hell.

Uh, they never spoke up? Really? Man, I saw tons of dissatisfaction online after I first read it, though I enjoyed it. Maybe Armada falling flat let them be more vocal about it. We're just hearing about it more because of the movie.

It's a dumb book, but hating it for being dumb is like hating cotton candy for not having nutritional value.

Trike wrote: "It's a dumb book, but hating it for being dumb is like hating cotton candy for not having nutritional value."

*mashes nonexistent goodreads Like button*

Its not just dumb though. It's shallow, derivative and stripped of the 80s fan wank it's a boring story. The ONLY reason it got traction is the 80s angle. As if to prove he's a .5 trick pony, Cline rewrote The Last Starfighter and called it Armada. One 80s nostalgia trip wasn't enough??

That's exactly why I didn't read Armada. Cotton candy every now and again is fine, but you don't make regular meals of it.

RPO came out, what?, 6 or 7 years ago? Right at the height of the 80s craze. It owes its entire success to that.

Yep. Without the 80s craze, Rp1 doesn't do much. He's also popular/tight with people like Wil Wheaton and Scalzi and while that was a minor thing, they and others have a lot of followers so it got noticed and reviewed in places like BoingBoing and io9... where a lot of so-called geeks read.

I doubt the movie will do well unless it's MUCH better than the trailer. We'll see though.

I played the arcade games, knew the movies, even played some of the home games (not the RPGs.) The book still left me pretty much cold. I don't get the love for this book nor the desire to make a movie of it. All I can say is congrats to Ernest Cline for getting noticed.

The problem isn't that RPO is a dumb book, but that people react to it like, "Whoa, he knows abiyt $popular_movie_that_plays_on_cable_twice_a_day! He's cool, and reading this makes me feel cool." It's like the worst parts of Baby Boomer nostalgia updated for Gen-X -- except Baby Boomber nostalgia involves the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, whereas this is Kajagoogoo and Men Without Hats.

"It's like the worst parts of Baby Boomer nostalgia updated for Gen-X -- except Baby Boomber nostalgia involves the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, whereas this is Kajagoogoo and Men Without Hats."

(looks around for Like button...)

I think the populatrity with certain people comes from them being picked on geeks in the 80s and this book validating that as you noted... that the stuff they liked is somehow important in the middle of the 21st century and that it's the key to saving the world.

I mean, even the theme and basic story is ripped from the 80s. This is also kind of why I've avoided Stranger Things. I don't hate them, but the 80s don't make me excited. They're not my decade so stuff that echoes them doesn't have a special place for me.

All I can think of is how much they're gonna spend on licensing and special effects, and my mind stutters on my estimates for those two line items.

Circling back to the trailer....

Does it suck or does it suck? Sure, there's some cool effects but if you didn't know what the story was, that trailer wouldn't tell you AT ALL. I mean not at all. You'd think it's about some kid living in a slum who connects to a VR reality and games. You'd have no idea that the Oasis is up for grabs, how important it is, that there's some Evil Corp after it... nada.

Now, yeah, there's going too far and spoiling things but you also have to give people an idea of what the movie's about so they can know if they want to check it out.

People take RPO seriously? I don't see how that book was ever meant to be taken serious. I did it by audio and it was entertaining. Whenever it dragged, I just didn't pay attention. I can't ever think of reading the book. That would have annoyed me. I know I liked it because I did it by audio. heh

There's no way the movie will be a good rep of the book. Unless it's going to be a "series" of movies. At most, it'll probably be a fun popcorn flick. Just like the book.

It didn't even work for me as popcorn because it relies on the reader being excited about the 80s geek culture. I think if you are, then yeah, it's a light, popcorn/cotton candy entertainment. My pushback on it is mostly due to what I think of as the outsized positive reception it got as some amazing, great book. I mean, it has a 4.31 rating on GR. To quote another 80s figure... "You can't be serious!"

I think RPO had the potential to be great popcorn entertainment but Cline failed. The story and characters were always secondary to the 80s references. For some people, that's fine. For me it's not. That's why I didn't like the book. And I think that's where the movie can fail. Spielberg has to elevate the story to rise about the endless 80s jerkoff. This first trailer isn't any indication that he did.

There are ways to do nostalgia without just saying, "Hey, remember this thing that was popular back in the '80s? Well my character from future knows all about it, thus validating your memories!" I mean, look at Stranger Things, or Donnie Darko. They're set in the '80s, they have appropriate costumes, props and music, and people occasionally make pop-culture references to Back to the Future or Ghostbusters, but the characters never stop the story for five minutes to look at the audience and explain why Ghostbusters is a classic.

See also: The Goldbergs. Set in the 80s, plenty of references, but still telling a story and it's really funny.

Going back a ways, but that was why "That 70's Show" worked and lasted multiple seasons, where "That 80's show" didn't make it half a season. One was a story set in a decade, the other tried to make it about the decade. One had a good story and good writing, one didn't.

Rick, the trailer thing is tricky. In particular if the movie is an adaptation, I think less plot is fine. I think trailers in general had swung way to far to giving away too much, and I'm personally glad they are going away from that a bit. Now for a completely new property, sure you have to give a bit of a lead in, but even that should be the barest minimum to get people interested. What that barest minimum is, is the tough question.

I think the first teaser for Thor: Ragnarok did a great job of cutting a line between the two. I haven't watched the new trailer for it, since I got annoyed by the cover picture on You tube for it. I'm sure I'll see that trailer on TV or in the theater at some point, but I'm not going to seek it out.

John - Yeah trailers are a balancing act. But RP1 is a niche property and if they want to appeal to people outside the SF community (and with those effects I assume they do) they need to explain a bit more about the stakes. Or not... I don't care, really.

Thor isn't comparable IMO - it's a part of a known universe with characters we've seen before.

Remember it is also only a teaser trailer, with even less content than a full trailer. It's supposed to drive discussion, like it has, before we see a full trailer and have a better understanding of what it's about.

The Stranger Things and Ready Player One trailers are the best and worst of nostalgia-driven marketing via The Verge.

Rick wrote: "I doubt the movie will do well unless it's MUCH better than the trailer. We'll see though."

I dunno. Spielberg is directing it. His movies usually do pretty well. Heck, my mom will watch it if Spielberg directed it.

The trailer may not explain much but C'MON - it was for the Comic Con crowd who probably had all read the book or at least heard of it.

I'll probably watch it. I didn't mind the book - I actually enjoyed it. The cotton candy analogy was perfect. I don't mind cotton candy if I don't eat it every day.

They thinned the protagonist up. How much you want to bet his love interest is missing that large, distinctive facial birthmark?

I think this article gets at what, for me, the RP1 trailer fails at: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/26/16...

The vital difference between the Ready Player One and Stranger Things trailers comes down to story. Stranger Things is all about it, counting on the idea of the Upside Down bleeding into our own world, and the effects that causes, to keep viewers intrigued. ... The music choice and the Ghostbusters costuming let us know what time period we’re in, but they’re not the focus. Ready Player One, on the other hand, rejects the notion of story entirely. It’s a trailer created almost exclusively to highlight the endless references that made Cline’s novel resonate for many readers, but it gives the unshakeable impression that the finished product is just going to be a soulless reference-machine.

Brian wrote: "They thinned the protagonist up. How much you want to bet his love interest is missing that large, distinctive facial birthmark?"

She was also zaftig at about 165. It would be nice if they'd let that be as well.

Well I'm excited despite all the negativity I keep seeing.

I thought the book was over-hyped but I did enjoy the nerd nostalgia. I think most people enjoy seeing things they think are special to themselves. T & V always seem to be a bit more excited when a book takes place in San Francisco, I like looking for Vancouver landmarks in the CW hero shows and I loved the Tomb of Horror and Joust references in RPO.
As far as the trailer being good or bad, as someone else pointed out it was just a teaser trailer that did exactly what it was supposed to do. It wasn't meant to say anything about the plot and if it did many of the same people would be complaining about that too.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I LOVED this book. Really, truly, for realz, no movie could live up to what I pictured. Armada has a better chance at being a good movie, perhaps even better than the book, if they fix the ending. That damn worthless ending.

Rob wrote: "Well I'm excited despite all the negativity I keep seeing."

What he said. I didn't realize how much hate there was for this book until I listened to review that simply attacked the gender portrayals for 20min.

Taking apart something mainstream popular in pedantic fashion and hating on it is a fashionable way to create self-importance these days.

I am with Rob here, i am really looking forward to the film. I highly enjoyed the Audible narration by Wil Wheaton, and enjoyed the 80s references.
Of course, proof is in the watching.

I enjoyed the book for the sake of entertainment. I went into it as a kind of fluff read and in that sense it did not disappoint. I admit I kind of ughed at the description of the women, but chalked it up to it was the point of view of the MC, who is not the most worldly. I have since heard that kind of thing is a problem through the rest of Cline's novels, but I haven't read them myself so...

I'm looking forward to the movie, if as only mindless entertainment, like I did with the book. I think it's possible to both enjoy something and find parts of it problematic. I don't think it's meant to be deep and seeing the nostalgic references is kind of fun.

I'm actually fairly optimistic about the film, even the preview doesn't give me a real reason to be. I didn't much care for the book, but it did have a decent concept and that is enough to work from. Just look how well Wicked was adapted from that god awful book.

Ready Player One wouldn't take nearly as much tweaking to make good. As an example, the Delorian in the preview looks just like the one from BttF II. But in the book, didn't he paint it to resemble the Ecto 1? For me, that description was one of the key points were the book missed the mark. Cline would start with an 80's reference and then put an 80's reference on that, wrap it in an 80's reference and shove one more in for good measure.

J wrote: "...the Delorian in the preview looks just like the one from BttF II. But in the book, didn't he paint it to resemble the Ecto 1? For me, that description was one of the key points were the book missed the mark. Cline would start with an 80's reference and then put an 80's reference on that, wrap it in an 80's reference and shove one more in for good measure."

It's all about licensing. If different studios/corporations own the various intellectual properties, they probably don't want them mashed up too much with other studios' intellectual properties.

Randy wrote: "It's all about licensing. If different studios/corporations own the various intellectual properties, they probably don't want them mashed up too much with other studios' intellectual properties.."

Your right there. It would be totally impossible to make the movie exactly like the book and feature all the games, music and films from the 80's. That's what makes the book special however, so I will wait and see how the movie turns out.

I think the book is Twilight for nerds, it's so horrible. I think Daemon is a much better book

Christos wrote: "I think the book is Twilight for nerds, it's so horrible. I think Daemon is a much better book"

If it's so horrible, why did you give it 5 stars?

That's weird I swear I remember I gave it two stars. I don't know why it's 5, maybe i rated the wrong book from my read list. Thanks for telling me I changed it

"If it's so horrible, why did you give it 5 stars?"

Spielberg's movies are always quality, whatever one might argue about a trailer. I'm looking forward to seeing this one, and reading the book.

Here's another vote for "underwhelmed" by the book. It was fine as light holiday reading, but there were lots of things that annoyed me with it, and it certainly didn't live up to the hype.

I loved the book. I did it on audio and its one of those books I found myself making excuses to go places so I could listen more as I do most of my listening in the car. I was underwhelmed by Armada simply because it such an obvious rinse / repeat of RP1.

As to the teaser, I liked it simply because it gave us a hint as to the effects and the fact that the licensing isn't going to be a problem. Though I was perplexed by the inclusion of the Iron Giant since that movie came out in 1999 and not the late 70's / 80's as does all the major properties of RP1.

Richard wrote: "I am with Rob here, i am really looking forward to the film. I highly enjoyed the Audible narration by Wil Wheaton, and enjoyed the 80s references.
Of course, proof is in the watching."

If you had told me 20 years that Wesley Crusher would be my favorite audio book narrator I wouldn't have believed you.

^I remember the button from conventions. "Stop Saving The Ship!" There was also "At least Wil Wheaton didn't try to write and direct a major motion picture."