The trailer makes me want to read the book again.

damn, it's been 2+ years since I read the book. Might have to give it a once over before it comes out. Trailer looked fun as hell

TCTTS said:

---

Actually I think I did just see a Light Cycle as well though...

---

There may have been a light cycle in there somewhere, but this is what I think was featured prominently in the trailer:

I thought I'd read the book before seeing this movie. 3 keys and 29 chapters down, and I just can't do it anymore. I'm close to the end and just don't care enough to keep going.

I'm an 80s kid and I understand all the references, but there's something about this writing style that just flat out bores me. It's like a high school kid is trying to describe a dream and they keep getting caught up on all the little details without realizing that the story isn't interesting enough to spend this much time on it.

I really wanted to like the book, and I'll still see the movie at some point, but as of today I'm out. It's an easy read - it just isn't interesting.

Not a fan of the mouth breather as Wade.

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Actually I think I did just see a Light Cycle as well though...

---

There may have been a light cycle in there somewhere, but this is what I think was featured prominently in the trailer:

---

I enjoy myself an Akira reference, and I can honestly see it either way. I originally thought it was a reference to the original light cycles from Tron though.

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

I thought I'd read the book before seeing this movie. 3 keys and 29 chapters down, and I just can't do it anymore. I'm close to the end and just don't care enough to keep going.

I'm an 80s kid and I understand all the references, but there's something about this writing style that just flat out bores me. It's like a high school kid is trying to describe a dream and they keep getting caught up on all the little details without realizing that the story isn't interesting enough to spend this much time on it.

I really wanted to like the book, and I'll still see the movie at some point, but as of today I'm out. It's an easy read - it just isn't interesting.

---

I finished it, but I did not think it was anything special, either.

It's an interesting concept. I'm just not a fan of the execution. The references are exhausting.

This article is a little too harsh but touches on a few things that I agree with:
http://geekmountain.com.au/so-you-dont-have-to-ready-player-one/

Quote:

---

I have never read a book that failed so completely to engross me.

---

Quote:

---

Even more frustrating is how, whenever something is referenced, it is referenced in excruciating detail. If this is meant to be a nostalgia-gasm for nerds of a certain age, why go to the trouble of explaining every band and movie as if no one's ever heard of them.
.......
The whole writing style is dull and every line is delivered in the same smarmy, know-it-all tone that you'll come to recognize as the protagonist's default setting.

---

And then there's this one:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/205484356

Quote:

---

Ready Player Onedoesn't draw from 1980s popular culture; it just name-drops it all over the place. Sometimes it seemed the only purpose for these references was that the author and reader could share a knowing, self-congratulating smile.

---

And this comment from that page is on target (in my opinion):

Quote:

---

Flat is the perfect way to describe it. I mean, I love video games and pop culture and all, but all the "name dropping" as you described was really just that: very contrived and was sort of pandering for a "Wow I remember that! Awesome!" response. Unfortunately, it really didn't get past that part, but it was an ok read.

---

And now I just found a Reddit thread about it. I won't quote it because I think the point has been made, but it's not pretty.

No big deal - not everyone likes the same stuff. I just expected so much more after reading so many references to it on TexAgs over the years.

Name dropping is the perfect way to describe it.

Sex Panther said:

---

So we've reached the point where something became so popular it's time for the backlash and claims that it's actually not that good

---

Was thinking the same thing.

Very few things can live up to the hype especially if you have an idea going in

I'm reading the book and trying to bear in mind it aint no Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. I like the 80s but it goes pretty far.

Cannew said:

---

One of my favorite guilty pleasures is to listen to Will Wheaton read this book on audible. Though it is not quite how I would have pictured it in the trailer I'm pumped to see Spielbergs take! I will say Ben menhdelson is pretty much how I pictured Sorrento.

---

Me too. Wish he could pronounce "poseur" right, though. Ironically, I think that proves Wheaton is a poseur.

While I personally enjoyed RP1, I can understand some of the criticism (though I think much of it definitely falls into the "it's cool to hate because it's mainstream now" category). The material either resonates with you or it doesn't. It just happens to do so for me in a big way, as well as just about anyone I've talked to about it.

I will say that if someone doesn't like RP1, don't bother reading Cline's other novel, Armada, as it is more of the same and even I find that Cline leaned into the nostalgia references a little too much in that one. I did enjoy Armada, but it is not on the same level as RP1.

I got stuck about halfway through Armada. Kept waiting for it to pick up but hasn't yet. Loved RP1 though.

Sex Panther said:

---

So we've reached the point where something became so popular it's time for the backlash and claims that it's actually not that good

---

No.

We have reached the point where fan boys cannot admit that their sacred cow looks like a CGI crapfest to people who have not read the book.

The trailer may NAIL the book for all I know. I do not care. Looks like overly-CGId crap like Valerian

SeattleAgJr said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

So we've reached the point where something became so popular it's time for the backlash and claims that it's actually not that good

---

No.

We have reached the point where fan boys cannot admit that their sacred cow looks like a CGI crapfest to people who have not read the book.

The trailer may NAIL the book for all I know. I do not care. Looks like overly-CGId crap like Valerian

---

IMO it doesn't. It is looking more and more like a wait until it comes on HBO movie for me and I loved the book.

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

I thought I'd read the book before seeing this movie. 3 keys and 29 chapters down, and I just can't do it anymore. I'm close to the end and just don't care enough to keep going.

I'm an 80s kid and I understand all the references, but there's something about this writing style that just flat out bores me. It's like a high school kid is trying to describe a dream and they keep getting caught up on all the little details without realizing that the story isn't interesting enough to spend this much time on it.

I really wanted to like the book, and I'll still see the movie at some point, but as of today I'm out. It's an easy read - it just isn't interesting.

---

I thought the book was good, not great, but yeah, it's straight Gen X nostalgia porn.

NColoradoAG said:

---

SeattleAgJr said:

---

We have reached the point where fan boys cannot admit that their sacred cow looks like a CGI crapfest to people who have not read the book.

---

There's too much CGI in the movie based on a book where 3/4 of the story takes place in a computer generated world.

---

You focus on the CGI and not on the crapfest,.

Not trying to be adversarial here, honest question: can you explain what makes it a "crapfest" when it's a TEASER trailer that by design gives you nothing about the story?

I completely understand why people who don't know the book would be confused/skeptical, and I get people thinking it's nostalgia porn but I don't get having a such negative reaction except for how much CGI there is, but this is a story where CGI actually serves the plot

Sex Panther said:

---

He's trying to get a reaction

---

Nice ****post.

The vast majority of the movie going audience does not know about this book.
I guarantee you they will see this in theaters and most will shake their head and laugh at this like it is hot garbage.

It looks... dumb to someone that is not familiar with the book.

It comes off as a try-hard movie throwing out all the pop culture references and a **** ton of CGI making it look generic like every other all CGI crapfest from the last 5 years.

Yes, the book is lauded among geeks. I am not criticizing the book; I have not read it so I can only speak of what others have said about it,

But I have seen the trailer, and I can guarantee my assessment will be similar to that of the larger audience.

Yes, it has Spielberg's name on it which gives it more clout, but it does not change the fact that it looks like a better told "Pixels".

Stranger Things is nostalgia porn, but it works because it looked like it came from the 80s. This just looks like a current CGI movie with some 80s references thrown in. Maybe the book is different, but this doesn't feel 80s to me.

NColoradoAG said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I'm not exactly RPO's target audience. While I love a lot of 80's nostalgia having been born in the 80's, I wasn't ever a gamer, a comic book guy, or much of a sci-fi fan. I get a lot but not close to all the pop culture references in the book.

I still enjoyed the book tremendously. It was one of the easiest reads of any book I've ever read, and tells a fun, simple, heartfelt story with a twist.

The teaser trailer is just that, a teaser. So far to me, it looks fun. I also know they packed as much as they could in the teaser so everyone could bust their nostalgia porn nut.

Spielberg isn't my favorite director by any means, but are you really already hedging your bet based off a teaser trailer of a book you've never read, that people who didn't read it will go into the theater and laugh at it like it's "hot garbage?" After one teaser?

---

Didn't you read? He guaranteed it will be a crapfest. A total CGI crapfest.

I mean, books loved by nerds, which maybe weren't widely read, and feature a ton of CGI to recreate the story are guaranteed flops. No one went and saw The Lord of the Rings movies.

---

Or any of those stupid comic book movies.

it's not supposed to feel 80's.

It takes place in the future, and everything "game play" related is inside a virtual world. They aren't going to create a virtual world to look 80's.

The film will give it more context, as will an extended trailer when you see more of the set-up.