Oh no a young adult who won't even be born for a few years missed the point of a 1999 film based on a 1968 novel.
Well at least after the giant robot fight, The Iron Giant went out in a heroic sacrifice allowing the other protagonists to progress.
So the point wasn't entirely missed?
You're sarcastic but you do realize how a better film can get overshadowed by a worse one, right?
It's like how people now view Rambo as a bloodthirsty badass as opposed to a veteran with PTSD who just wanted to be left alone.
Bad overshadows good.
The trailers alone suggest multiple decades worth of references. Particularly video games from the 1990s onwards, when video gaming actually exploded in popularity. That makes it far more accessible than whatever the book was like.
(It also makes far more sense, I think Chun-Li would indeed be more well-known and popular than some random 1970s D&D character, especially when she's been in multiple games spanning nearly three decades as of today, to say nothing of what happens if yet another game is released with her in it.)
This is a good thing. For one thing, video gaming almost died in the USA for a while in the 1980s. If the book did not even mention much of the post-Atari era, it has epically failed in the whole idea of 80s video games. All that 80s stuff, and no trivia involving Mario Bros.? Considering that the video game crash didn't kill it?
The trailers alone suggest multiple decades worth of references. Particularly video games from the 1990s onwards, when video gaming actually exploded in popularity. That makes it far more accessible than whatever the book was like.
This is a good thing. For one thing, video gaming almost died in the USA for a while in the 1980s. If the book did not even mention much of the post-Atari era, it has epically failed in the whole idea of 80s video games. All that 80s stuff, and no trivia involving Mario Bros.? Considering that the video game crash didn't kill it?
Because the book was not about video games, or good movies from the 80's, it was about "Things Cline liked when he was a kid". He did not like Mario, so no Mario.
Because the book was not about video games, or good movies from the 80's, it was about "Things Cline liked when he was a kid". He did not like Mario, so no Mario.
Seems like a good thing Spielberg asserted more creative control over some of the scenes.
"No, all those guys and girls are gonna dress as whoever they like for the big fight! They won't all be 80s nerds!" (Technically, Gundam is from the 70s...)
friendly reminderRemember to attack the arguments, not the people.
To discuss something doesn't mean that both parties are in agreement on everything; that wouldn't be a discussion. However both parties must, at the very least, agree to be willing to hear out, corroborate or refute, the opponent's argument with their own argument, and not through attacks at each other's character, or person.
Keep the discussion to the arguments, and keep it civil.
Actually considering the state of the world, I doubt the "life threatening" part would make any difference. The world is still f-ed up, all that changed was a bit of the power bases.
You're sarcastic but you do realize how a better film can get overshadowed by a worse one, right?
It's like how people now view Rambo as a bloodthirsty badass as opposed to a veteran with PTSD who just wanted to be left alone.
Bad overshadows good.
You know what The Iron Giant and Rambo really mean. Surely that's all that really matters. And I'll continue not to care what they mean because it doesn't matter to me at all.
You know what The Iron Giant and Rambo really mean. Surely that's all that really matters. And I'll continue not to care what they mean because it doesn't matter to me at all.
If you don't care, then why are you telling other people not to criticize it? If that's not your intention then please say what is and I'll address what you actually mean instead.
Because when you say "it doesn't matter to me" as a way of telling other people not to talk about it, that means it does matter to you. The point of this thread is to discuss the movie, and part of that is discussing this kind of thing.
Seems like a good thing Spielberg asserted more creative control over some of the scenes.
"No, all those guys and girls are gonna dress as whoever they like for the big fight! They won't all be 80s nerds!" (Technically, Gundam is from the 70s...)
If you don't care, then why are you telling other people not to criticize it? If that's not your intention then please say what is and I'll address what you actually mean instead.
Because when you say "it doesn't matter to me" as a way of telling other people not to talk about it, that means it does matter to you. The point of this thread is to discuss the movie, and part of that is discussing this kind of thing.
No, I'm telling you that your criticism is subjective and is based on values that I do not share.
Personally, I believe that people (real or fictional, authors or readers, directors or audiences, past, present and future) can think whatever they like about The Iron Giant. Or about Rambo. I don't see a net societal or cultural gain or loss to people holding a 'right' or 'wrong' view on these subjects. Therefore, I do not judge a movie such as Ready Player One for portraying a young person multiple decades in the future using the guise of The Iron Giant in a way that is not consistent with the 1999 film.
I understand that you and others do not like this portrayal. I respect that you dislike the film as individuals for that reason, but I hope you will see that it doesn't need to be your responsibility to be concerned about everyone who might see RPO and get the wrong about The Iron Giant. That doesn't affect you, so you don't need to worry about it. Besides, don't you think it's more likely that people who never saw The Iron Giant might be motivated to do so, and thus would be informed about the actual nature of the character? Although, as I said earlier
The Iron Giant does go out in a heroic sacrifice move in RPO
so maybe that balances out?
But the main point is that your argument is subjective, so if you want to make me agree with you, you're going to have to make me care about The Iron Giant in the same was as you. That would probably be a waste of time?
-
On the topic of shutting down the Oasis twice a week, I think I already said I hope that they wound down to that gradually rather than hard cutting to it being off for a full 24 hour stretch, because of all the various Bad Things that would result in making everyone go cold turkey.
And I agree that if the Oasis is basically the entire internet, then it would be very bad and impractical and terrible to do that. It wouldn't make sense to do that so I'm going to assume that isn't the case.
But with that said, I can see how likely it would be that more and more services would migrate to having their primary interaction points be inside the Oasis, since that's where everyone is. Would anyone bother to make a webpage for a flatscreen browser when everyone's attention is in the OASIS? If not, that would be a problem. (Unless they can just shut down the game aspects, I guess?) Hopefully VRML or whatever everyone builds their websites with in the future is able to fallback to a readable HTML webpage in the absence of the Oasis.
Ready Player One perverts works of fiction to make them fit their nostalgia craze. To do that, screenwriters of RPO make up a world where using Iron Giant in the most ignorant and disrespectful way possible is considered cool and awesome - and they want you to think it's cool and awesome too. There is little subjective about this; it's why movie was made, after all.
If you don't share the value of "people should think about their fiction", that's your problem, and you better solve it as quickly as you can.
This debate angle seems to be heading back into whether the right way to see the fiction is how the author envisioned it, or how the viewer/reader/critic sees/understands/remembers it (including when the critic/viewer becomes an author in its own right, and produces something influenced by / derivative from the original screening/reading).
In a way it's yet another rehash of the Moral Rights vs. Death of the Author conflict.
This debate angle seems to be heading back into whether the right way to see the fiction is how the author envisioned it, or how the viewer/reader/critic sees/understands/remembers it (including when the critic/viewer becomes an author in its own right, and produces something influenced by / derivative from the original screening/reading).
In a way it's yet another rehash of the Moral Rights vs. Death of the Author conflict.
Except in this case there's the added twist of it obviously being a perversion of what the character meant for commercial gain. And that RPO's a bad movie.
It's the difference between RPO and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Arguments that would work for the latter don't work for the former and any attempt to just try to frame it as just about the references is fallacious.
This debate angle seems to be heading back into whether the right way to see the fiction is how the author envisioned it, or how the viewer/reader/critic sees/understands/remembers it (including when the critic/viewer becomes an author in its own right, and produces something influenced by / derivative from the original screening/reading).
In a way it's yet another rehash of the Moral Rights vs. Death of the Author conflict.
Death of the Author does not mean people can't disagree on the interpretation of a work or think someone's interpretation is dumb. All it means is that there is not ultimate god of interpretation whose word is law.
The trailer shows that Halliday has not made any plans to break up the OASIS monopoly.
Imagine if he said "half a trillion dollars and an SDK to create a new OASIS". The SDK is vital to breaking the global monopoly, and half a trillion dollars can buy plenty of servers, optical fibre and access points. The bad guy will absolutely have to win no matter what to achieve corporate monetisation goals, whereas a lot of people would join the hunt, simply to have a chance to create another virtual universe.
The resulting chase will be no less intense, (you might even have rival corporations willing to help Watts and Co.) whereas the main characters have a chance to do something other than "let's shut OASIS down twice a week for maintenance".
