+wongojack Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Yeah, I enjoyed the pop-culture references in the book, but I thought it was terribly written. It wasn't even really a book in my mind, just an excuse (as the article suggests) for the author to chain together a bunch of anecdotes about things he likes and dislikes. The movie is in the "Wait for it to come on TV" category for me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvis Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Yeah, I enjoyed the pop-culture references in the book, but I thought it was terribly written. It wasn't even really a book in my mind, just an excuse (as the article suggests) for the author to chain together a bunch of anecdotes about things he likes and dislikes. The movie is in the "Wait for it to come on TV" category for me. I havent finished the book, but saw the movie. I enjoyed it. My daughter says the movie differs from the book quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarifan88 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 The audio book read by Wil Wheaton is interesting to listen to. It kept me interested. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+nanochess Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 The first third of the book is a collection of retro snippets, I understood is written for non-tech savvy people (and I think it's a reason for its success) so I tolerated it, then the books accelerates and I was hooked On the good side, Ready Player One makes everyone at Atariage to be in fashion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 On the good side, Ready Player One makes everyone at Atariage to be in fashion This truly is the Age of Geeks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) I want people to create art they like. Not art they think "I" or "others" will like. I realize this means being an 'artist' means a very low chance for 'success'. But,.. to me, that's the definition of art. You just create what you like,.. and maybe others will appreciate it; if not, fine, appreciate it yourself, and if you can't, why did you make it or rather why are you still standing behind it? That's Ready, Player One I believe Earnest Cline really wrote a book that he knew he himself liked, and hoped others would too, but is now being warped, changed, etc by "Hollywood", only "Hollywood" doesn't take the blame for problems with the material, for some reason Earnest Cline does. Sure he created it, but "Hollywood" looked at it and said 'Great! Lets a make a movie!', only obviously "Hollywood" didn't really think it was "Great" just some thing they could use to turn 1 dollar into 2, and if anyone has a problem with it, well hey "we didn't come up with it... THIS guy did!!!" I don't believe Earnest Cline thought this out enough... he was offered a huge sum of money and his instinct was to use his semi-successful piece of art to make exorbitant amounts of money, and he is now going to feel the lashback. Has he watched ANY Hollywood movie in the last 30 years? they don't try to tell meaningful stories with messages. They want to turn a quick profit. The book may have been a classic when re-viewed 20 years from now... Now all anyone will remember is a half-baked movie that relied on "member?" *EDIT I haven't seen the movie nor read the book. What I do know is the book got great praise, and the movie is floundering... and we all know which will be remembered. Movies are watched more than books are read, and the failures stand out much more than the successes. What were you thinking Earnest??? Are you a member on here? Edited April 19, 2018 by Torr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 You're way too gentle on the book, especially for someone who hasn't read it. It's fun, but it's no classic, and it's only relevant to those who are exactly the right age to remember its references. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarifan88 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 *EDIT I haven't seen the movie nor read the book. What I do know is the book got great praise, and the movie is floundering... and we all know which will be remembered. Movies are watched more than books are read, and the failures stand out much more than the successes. Actually the movie has been a success. It was the number 1 movie in the U.S. for 2/3 weeks. I wouldn't call that floundering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcsrocks Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Some parts of the book are entertaining, but call it a classic or "art" is a bit of a stretch... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zwackery Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Actually the movie has been a success. It was the number 1 movie in the U.S. for 2/3 weeks. I wouldn't call that floundering... Actually, the film - at a reported production cost of $175 million plus another $150 million in global marketing - has only earned (as of 4/19/2018) a little over $117 million. So, financially, and domestically, and decidedly by Hollywood's own financial metrics, no, it is not a success. Far from it. (The basic formula is, for a film to be profitable (and that's what successful means, and buckets full of awards are great, but at the end of the day it's a business, folks) the film must earn 2.5 times the combined production & marketing costs.) Now, factor in the foreign box office (the bulk of which came from China, they love Senor Spielbergo) at $367.3 million and now you are at $484.3 million, so: 2.5(175+150) = $812.5 million and little Stevie is halfway to a (financial) hit. He'll get another bump on home video (particularly since the trivia obsessed will be analyzing every frame of the movie for easter eggs (he writes unironically)), but I asked the Magic 8 Ball and it told me "Outlook not so good." Yes, as of today, RPO is the #2 domestic box office winner (about $4 million ahead of Peter Rabbit and the #4 and 5 entries - A Quiet Place and Fifty Shades Freed - are also in the $100 million+ club), but in a summer full of blockbusters, it's going to be tough for it to scare up much more domestic cash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 The basic formula is, for a film to be profitable ... the film must earn 2.5 times the combined production & marketing costs. That's a very high bar. Perhaps you work in the industry or something, but it seems to me that if this were true, almost nothing would get made, because very few films hit those kinds of numbers. (looks it up, finds a source, and another obvious one, concedes the point) so it needed to gross over $440M to break even?? Films are crazy. BTW according to this thing, Ernie has a net worth of $1M, so it's not like he took all the money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarifan88 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Actually, the film - at a reported production cost of $175 million plus another $150 million in global marketing - has only earned (as of 4/19/2018) a little over $117 million. So, financially, and domestically, and decidedly by Hollywood's own financial metrics, no, it is not a success. Far from it. (The basic formula is, for a film to be profitable (and that's what successful means, and buckets full of awards are great, but at the end of the day it's a business, folks) the film must earn 2.5 times the combined production & marketing costs.) Now, factor in the foreign box office (the bulk of which came from China, they love Senor Spielbergo) at $367.3 million and now you are at $484.3 million, so: 2.5(175+150) = $812.5 million and little Stevie is halfway to a (financial) hit. He'll get another bump on home video (particularly since the trivia obsessed will be analyzing every frame of the movie for easter eggs (he writes unironically)), but I asked the Magic 8 Ball and it told me "Outlook not so good." Yes, as of today, RPO is the #2 domestic box office winner (about $4 million ahead of Peter Rabbit and the #4 and 5 entries - A Quiet Place and Fifty Shades Freed - are also in the $100 million+ club), but in a summer full of blockbusters, it's going to be tough for it to scare up much more domestic cash. Then I guess all the films that were out around that time were failures. No wonder why movie ticket prices are so high and still according to your post do not make any money. Unfortunately movies are becoming like sporting events....too expensive! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Then I guess all the films that were out around that time were failures. No wonder why movie ticket prices are so high and still according to your post do not make any money. Unfortunately movies are becoming like sporting events....too expensive! film/budget/box office Peter Rabbit/50M/299M "hit" Quiet Place/21M/162M "hit" Fifty Shades Freed/55M/368M "hit" Black Panther/210M/1316M "hit" Pacific Rim Uprising/176M/281M "not hit" Wrinkle in Time/130M/122M "not hit" Ready Player One/175M/484M "not hit" I haven't bothered to see RP1 yet (I guess I'm "part of the problem") but I think the subject matter would have been well served by a short TV miniseries, obviously with a smaller budget. I would have watched a series of animated shorts on YouTube for sure. :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMaddog Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 That whole "Hollywood acounting" is so stupid... $309 million profit and it's not a hit?? It's probably one of those movies that'll make way more money through Blu-Ray & rental sales anyway, especially since it's not worth going to movie theaters anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman000 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 'Ready Player One/175M/484M "not hit"' Remember, about half of the ticket sales go to the theaters; this movie made about $67million for the studio, not enough to cover marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keatah Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) Pop culture references aren't enough for me. And it sounds rather dystopian. Plus there's a lot of VR in it, something I don't like anyways.. I struggled through the book, with all its ridiculousness, so, movie? No. Edited April 25, 2018 by Keatah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Thag Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 The movie was fun, definitely a spielberg film. That said, the setting and basic story felt a bit fan-fiction-ish. I suspect the film is much better than the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Remember, about half of the ticket sales go to the theaters; this movie made about $67million for the studio, not enough to cover marketing. You always hear that theaters don't make money off of showing movies, they make money from concessions. At the price of even a small tub of popcorn or fizzy drink, it's easy to understand why. Here's something I didn't know until now: the theater's take goes up if they keep an "older" (few weeks old, anyway) film in their theater. http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/ Who Gets What From Your $10 Ticket? Ok, so you walk up to the box office and drop down your $10 to buy your ticket. Who gets that money? A lot of people assume (as did I at one point) that the movie theater keeps 50% of it, and the rest goes off to the studios. That’s not really true. Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% – 25% of the green. That means, if you showed up to watch Bridget Jones’ Diary on opening night, then of the $12 you put out for a ticket, the movie theatre only got to keep between $2.40 and $3.00 of it. That’s not a lot of money, especially when you think about how much bigger and elaborate theatres are these days. It’s not cheap running one of these places. It can get even worse. This percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release. Can you imagine that? They had to over staff and have above normal capacity flood into their theatres… and they got to keep $0.00 from the ticket sales. That almost seems criminal. Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales. There is an obvious inherent problem with this arrangement. I don’t know about you, but when I finally get around to seeing a film that’s already been in the theatres for 4 or 5 weeks, I’m usually one of the only people in the place. It doesn’t do the establishment a lot of good to keep 80% of the ticket sales when only 14 tickets are sold per show. And with more and more and more movies getting released every week, the length of time that a movie stays in theaters is shrinking. Bad news for the movie theaters. Movie theaters are then forced to really make their money off concessions. One theater manager said “We’re not in the movie business… we’re in the candy business”. Very true. So if you ever wondered why a $0.15 bag of popcorn is costing you $5, and a $0.08 cup of Coke is running you another $4… it’s because the economics of the industry system is so screwed up that the concession stand is where theaters have to make most of their money. I don't know of any second-run theaters anymore, not with home video coming so fast after the theatrical release. If I haven't seen a movie by the second or third week after release, it usually means it's gone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negative1 Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 The movie was fun, definitely a spielberg film. That said, the setting and basic story felt a bit fan-fiction-ish. I suspect the film is much better than the book. Depends, I read the book first, and liked it a lot more, due to the details in it. The movie felt like another story shoehorned to fit into the plot, with the random car race, and weird 'shining' recreation. Not sure why you would judge a movie and say its better than the book, if you haven't read it. I remember when jurassic park came out, and i read the book a week before seeing it. The movie was a huge disappointment to me, although the effects were pretty cool. Jurassic park 3 was pretty decent, although it was never a book, but it was truer to the original book, than the movie was. the rest of them have been terrible, especially 2, 4, and guessing 5 will fall into the same routine. later -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Thag Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Depends, I read the book first, and liked it a lot more, due to the details in it. The movie felt like another story shoehorned to fit into the plot, with the random car race, and weird 'shining' recreation. Not sure why you would judge a movie and say its better than the book, if you haven't read it. I remember when jurassic park came out, and i read the book a week before seeing it. The movie was a huge disappointment to me, although the effects were pretty cool. Jurassic park 3 was pretty decent, although it was never a book, but it was truer to the original book, than the movie was. the rest of them have been terrible, especially 2, 4, and guessing 5 will fall into the same routine. later -1 I usually don't and read the book first, but in this case, given that several close friends whose opinions I trust all thought the same thing (that it was a fairly boring excuse for nostalgia-fest), and the fact that the movie's plot was just silly, even if it was fun, I decided to take a pass. I'm not interested enough to read the book, basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negative1 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 'Ready Player One/175M/484M "not hit"' Remember, about half of the ticket sales go to the theaters; this movie made about $67million for the studio, not enough to cover marketing. I had no idea it was that big of a hit overseas. Pretty impressive, so it will probably have a sequel. He is already writing it since 2017. Another book by the author, 'Armada' is also being made into a film. It's another mashup of The last starfighter, enders game, and other movies of that genre, where a kid plays a videogame to defend the earth from aliens, but it ends up being real. later -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.