Ready Player Two OUT NOW

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I liked the movie; Spielberg made it a Spielberg movie, and it felt like Cyber-Goonies. It was fun.

I hadn't realized just how bad the author is though, reading this thread makes me anticipate the sequel book. I think I'll go into it expecting The Room.
 
So what are the chances they'll try and get a film adaptation about the sequel made? Spielberg isn't one for sequels save for one jurassic sequel and the indiana jones series. Not to mention all they'll have to change I doubt they'll keep the breakup plot or kill off the lez tranny. The movie hinted at haliday having some kinda secret about his avatar. hinting that maybe he was still alive somehow or had uploaded his brain directly into the oasis while keeping his body in a dormant stasis. But even they pull something off or even manage to get spielberg back for a sequel the rpo movie didn't need one. It was a fine standalone movie much like how the book was fine as a standalone work.
 
🧩 First, I'm not angry, I'm handing out stickers. I really can't think of any entertainment media commentary that could make me angry.


♻️ Ok I'm immediately proven wrong. This does make me angry. Not you specifically, but the trend, the demand even, to defer quality judgments. I see it a lot in amateur reviews, I see it in politics.

"How was the movie?" "Uh, it's okay. A 7. Enjoyable, I guess." And then I find out the person hated it. Like really really hated. Would think less of anyone who didn't spend a night in jail for kicking a security guard in the nuts while demanding his money back hated. And the reason why he didn't say that outright was not because of politeness, not because he didn't want to risk me having liked it, but because, "uh, other people liked it? it has a 7.2 on imdb? eh? eh? I must be wrong?" Yeah right you're wrong about your own impression you bitchass cocksucker. The only thing everyone is by definition the expert on is one's own opinions. How on earth did we concede that to the hivemind. I keep seeing threads about it. "I hated this game, what should I rate it to be fair?", essentially trying to predict the eventual aggregate score. You rate it zero. And then the people who are interested in the aggregate score can look at the aggregate score, and those who are interested in your personal opinion can get it, too.

In politics, look for the great sin of Populism. What is populism? It's appeal to voters. Who then proceed to vote for you. Because they like your policies. Which you intend to implement.What ghastly underhanded tactic!

I see it in this.

I see it in your post. "Why are you giving a bad sticker to my opinion, it's just an opinion, yours is no more correct." Well I think it IS more correct, that's why I hold it. When I come to think another opinion is more correct, I change my mind. Not, like, afterward -- it's what "changing my mind" is.

I don't care about media specifically. This undermines the foundations of logic. A or B? "Well I'm absolutely sure it's A, but someone might say B, so I guess the truth is somewhere in between." WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN.

If you think something is a dumb choice, and then you see people making it, and you consider if it may make make sense after all in light of this circumstantial evidence, and arrive at the conclusion it's still dumb - then IT IS, to the best of your knowledge, and the people who are making it are BEING DUMB, and they deserve the bins.


❌ Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way wrote a work of fiction purely for the purposes of entertainment. Cline wrote his for money, and succeeded. (No problem with either, I'd do it too if I could.)


👍The problematic thing for me isn't "dumb fun", it's the dumb unfun. I want people to enjoy the shit they consoom, however retarded.

Over on the multimedia subforum there's a guy who spergs about his favorite franchise. I tried it on his (impersonal) recommendation and found it to be hot garbage. But he loves it, so, uh, congrats on having shitty taste? It's a personal value judgment. He's watching what he likes and having fun, it's The Right Thing to Do. The way he has fun trying to figure out a plot with more holes in it than the Menger sponge is commendable .(I probably gave him a couple of bad stickers regardless).

I think it's much, much worse to consoom bad media listlessly (having "good" taste but not the presence of mind to stop and do something else) than enthusiastically (having shit taste). The "it's fun if you switch off your brain" opinions are always the former. No one says this about something they love. We know this because no one says this about purely physical stuff when the consciousness isn't involved, like riding a bike or stroking a cat. "It's fun if you don't stop and ask yourself if it is." Switching one's brain off is needed so that people don't notice they're bored and miserable. At least actual cooming has a natural cooldown period of post-nut clarity (or so consumeproduct.win says, am a wamen), for consoomers the next garbage bin has already been queued up.

They mean "it's better than watching paint dry", but it's current year + n, it's not actually competing with watching paint dry. Never before in the history of the world there's been more things competing for our attention. No one ever needs to kill time.

But there's a lot of money involved in persuading people otherwise. The Industry must show Growth, and Growth means producing more garbage and keeping people passively miserable with infrequent and random injections of excitement.

Thanks for the clarifications, actually.

This plus what @L50LasPak said helps put a lot of this into context for me, I appreciate it.
 
Its extremely poorly written for sure but if that was the only problem it had I don't think anyone would even still be talking about it. There's also a lot of salt from the pretentious literary Show Don't Tell (or insert your choice of annoying overused writing advice) crowd that the book just blatantly ignores almost everything you're not supposed to do when writing a story and was still a massive success anyway. Which I'll be the first to admit is darkly hilarious but its not really a victory I feel too good about seeing.

This one is more on the speculative side, but another thread to this is whether or not the book was artifically popularized by interested corporate interests so they could turn it into a franchise. Theories on that often veer into full blown conspiratard narratives where the book and movie outright have no fans and that its all astroturfing (something that is blatantly false) so its hard to discuss without bringing out the a-logs. I tend to believe that the movie only got put together as swiftly as it did because a few enterprising suits noticed the book's potential as a multimedia franchise and were quick to fast-track it.
I mean Twilight was a multi-million dollar success plebs having shit taste and liking low effort shlock isn't new.
 
I mean Twilight was a multi-million dollar success plebs having shit taste and liking low effort shlock isn't new.
Twilight is old news these days. Really a better book to compare Ready Player One's level of quality to would probably be 50 Shades of Grey, as Twilight for all of its flaws at least maintains the appearance of competence (at least as far as cheap romance novels are concerned).
 
Twilight is old news these days. Really a better book to compare Ready Player One's level of quality to would probably be 50 Shades of Grey, as Twilight for all of its flaws at least maintains the appearance of competence (at least as far as cheap romance novels are concerned).
They're both allegedly masturbation fantasies on the part of the writer.

Don't know if it's true or not.
 
They are Twilight was entirely based of a wet dream Meyers had, same was with 50 Shades. While something like City of Bones was based of a bad HP fan fic just with changed names.
50 Shades was a Twilight fanfic before the author published it with changed names. City of Bones is not based on any fanfic, as far as I remember, Cassandra Clare just re-used the title (Mortal Instruments) of one of her old fanfics. But there was so much drama about her, including plagiarism, that I wouldn't be surprised if she did re-use fanfic ideas.
 
Ready Player One is an inspiration to anyone with a word processor to just write and publish. If the worst possible fecal matter can sell millions of copies and become a movie, fuck it, anything goes.
 
I skimmed a few bits of RP1 book, it was sad. The movie was less sad because at least it involved making the shit happen in cheap CG. I sat through Doraemon vs The Ring for that, so that wasn't any stretch.
but yeah "that stuff you saw interacted with that other stuff you saw" is pretty fucking lame in text form
I can't say that I can hate on Princeworld in principle though. Onlines legends say he was into a bunch of nerd shit, like iirc in the plunder from Paisley Park there were docus about wrasslers and a concept album about the Transformers that were simply in existence for Prince's enjoyment and never were expected to see the light of day.
 
Edit: To possibly answer my own question, it looks like the NY Times only counts the first whole week, maybe. Or is simply flat out a week behind for everything? Both the Sanderson and Baldacci books were released on November 17, yet this is the first week both appear. Makes sense in a dead tree media sense, I guess. Odd that the Baldacci book is a "first week" on Amazon. Edit

Kind of strange that the book isn't showing up on the NY Times bestseller list this week. It is currently # 3 on Amazon , and I would imagine there were a bunch of pre-orders that didn't get counted as sales until release day. IIRC Amazon's list is updated close to hourly, meaning the comparison is not apples to apples, but that might actually work to RP2's disadvantage, since you should have seen a big burst of sales on release day. (It isn't on the NY Times YA list, either.)

Didn't expect to see it at # 1, but I'm a little surprised not to see it in the top 15. 😕

1606662457133.png 1606662538215.png
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about the origin story of the author. How does someone like him get so far

It's not exactly a reliable source but according to Wikipedia, Ernest Cline mentioned some of the characters in his book were based on people he knew in niche journalism outlets that were still kind of relevant at the time, including the infamous Harry Knowles.

I think Cline got as far as he did because he knew the right people and his book came out in the right place at the right time for the astroturfing to work, just before the "having fun is problematic" mentality became a thing among the Marxists and the Left.

Of course, because Cline is a shit author who wrote a shit book and whose book succeeded due to astroturf and hype, it made him an easy target for the nascent Woke Left to hold up as an example of "This is why fun is problematic and everything must be didactic and fiction is only meant for political praxis!"

The problem wasn't that Ready Player One was meaningless entertainment with no real intentions of political or social meaning.

The problem is that Ready Player One is just a jumble of 80's references randomly strung together and that Ernest Cline is an untalented worthless beardo who happened to know the right people.
 
Last edited:
It's not exactly a reliable sourced but according to Wikipedia, Ernest Cline mentioned some of the characters in his book were based on people he knew in niche journalism outlets that were still kind of relevant at the time, including the infamous Harry Knowles.

I think Cline got as far as he did because he knew the right people and his book came out in the right place at the right time for the astroturfing to work, just before the "having fun is problematic" mentality became a thing among the Marxists and the Left.

Of course, because Cline is a shit author who wrote a shit book and whose book succeeded due to astroturf and hype, it made him an easy target for the nascent Woke Left to hold up as an example of "This is why fun is problematic and everything must be didactic and fiction is only meant for political praxis!"

The problem wasn't that Ready Player One was meaningless entertainment with no real intentions of political or social meaning.

The problem is that Ready Player One is just a jumble of 80's references randomly strung together and that Ernest Cline is an untalented worthless beardo who happened to know the right people.
I could be wrong, but wasn't Cline behind making the Fanboys movie?
 
I could be wrong, but wasn't Cline behind making the Fanboys movie?

I had no idea he had a hand in that.

Fanboys was actually a decent movie and actually really was a satire of geek culture in addition to being a nostalgic love letter to Star Wars, but if Cline was involved, it was probably a group effort where others were around to moderate Cline's autism or keep him in check

Like, it hasn't aged as well as other comedies from the era but it still holds up a lot more than a lot of other "geek" media or even other comedies from the late 2000's.
 
According to my Kindle, I'm at 45% of the book and struggling to keep reading. Feels like I'm reading a long long tweet.
 
I had no idea he had a hand in that.

Fanboys was actually a decent movie and actually really was a satire of geek culture in addition to being a nostalgic love letter to Star Wars, but if Cline was involved, it was probably a group effort where others were around to moderate Cline's autism or keep him in check

Like, it hasn't aged as well as other comedies from the era but it still holds up a lot more than a lot of other "geek" media or even other comedies from the late 2000's.
Ye, he apparently wrote the original screenplay for it and from what I recall he had issues getting this movie off the ground for a while, originally it was supposed to come out right before Phantom Menace or during its release.
 
Back
Top Bottom