I’m a little surprised nobody has mentioned anything about Ready Player One on here especially given the Spartans cameo.

Given the talk about video game movies, on a plot and story level it was fairly entertaining and well done. Not perfect; I felt like Wade’s home situation could have factored into things a little more, but whatever.

But the biggest thing that stood out to me was the downright regressive treatment of gender. Holy smokes was this movie troubling. It pretty much brought back the 80s action movie notion of women as trophy and accessory. Halliday completely eliminates any agency or humanity for Kira, who spends her existence literally on a pedestal waiting as a quest reward. She was almost exclusively seen and treated though his male gaze.

In true 80s fashion, the hero wins the girl just because he did something heroic, despite her initial rebuffs. I was wondering if Samantha had had a horrible disfigurement instead of a minor birthmark, or if she was a quadriplegic or something, Would Wade have been disappointed then?

Yeah the movie was fun, but it was shockingly backwards socially.

I’m a little surprised nobody has mentioned anything about Ready Player One on here especially given the Spartans cameo.

I mean, they show up in the trailer, so we’ve known for ages. Also, as Avateur pointed out once before, Halo as a franchise is no longer as relevant to people around here as it once was.

Given the talk about video game movies, on a plot and story level it was fairly entertaining and well done. Not perfect; I felt like Wade’s home situation could have factored into things a little more, but whatever.

Haven’t seen a Spielberg movie in a while; How does it compare to Schindler’s List?

But the biggest thing that stood out to me was the downright regressive treatment of gender. Holy smokes was this movie troubling. It pretty much brought back the 80s action movie notion of women as trophy and accessory. Halliday completely eliminates any agency or humanity for Kira, who spends her existence literally on a pedestal waiting as a quest reward. She was almost exclusively seen and treated though his male gaze.

Careful, you’ll trigger Kermit with all of your displeasure towards sexism and toxic masculinity... :P

In true 80s fashion, the hero wins the girl just because he did something heroic, despite her initial rebuffs. I was wondering if Samantha had had a horrible disfigurement instead of a minor birthmark, or if she was a quadriplegic or something, Would Wade have been disappointed then?

Spoiler alert. Some of us aren’t complete nerds, so we haven’t read the book.

Yeah the movie was fun, but it was shockingly backwards socially.

Interesting, yeah. Then again, Spielberg is pretty old school, so it’s to be expected.

I didn’t read the book either. It’s apprently very different, so much of what I discuss was added for the movie version.

Given the talk about video game movies, on a plot and story level it was fairly entertaining and well done. Not perfect; I felt like Wade’s home situation could have factored into things a little more, but whatever.

Agreed. I know some people ding it for not being the book. In fact, five friends in the row in front of me stood as the lights raised and one said something like “Ohh! That was awful!” Then they started pointing out all the differences from the book. Well... I didn’t read the book exactly so I wouldn’t get bogged down in comparisons. As a movie not meant to be a tent pole extravaganza... I liked it.

Yeah the movie was fun, but it was shockingly backwards socially.

No. You’re just overreaching and trying to cram plot points that were perfectly fine into your pre-formed conclusion of sexism. In this movie some women are good, some women are bad. Multiple women are shown as intelligent and capable and they too are keys to saving the day. But between your bad examples and Korny’s deliberately insulting snipes at Kermit, I want nothing more to do with this thread.

Good day, sirs! To the both of you.

No. You’re just overreaching and trying to cram plot points that were perfectly fine into your pre-formed conclusion of sexism. In this movie some women are good, some women are bad. Multiple women are shown as intelligent and capable and they too are keys to saving the day

Nothing you really said is addressing my criticism. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Intelligence or capableness are irrelevant here.

No. You’re just overreaching and trying to cram plot points that were perfectly fine into your pre-formed conclusion of sexism. In this movie some women are good, some women are bad. Multiple women are shown as intelligent and capable and they too are keys to saving the day

Nothing you really said is addressing my criticism. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Intelligence or capableness are irrelevant here.

Cody's right. you can have all the intelligent women in the world in your film, but if the hero-claims-the-girl-as-reward trope is there, it's still there, it's still dated, and in this day and age, it can still be seen as an issue.

And that's completely besides mentioning that it's a "white hetero male" who wins the girl and saves the day, as the SJWs are sure to point out and take issue with, but honestly, that's just dumb nitpicking.

The problem is the way a character is turned into little more than an object. And that problem is not mitigated by other, unrelated characters not fitting that description.

I agree that it's kind of a dumb debate to be having about the film. It's just a detail worth noting, though, since we're moving past that as a society (or trying to, anyway)...

I’m a little surprised nobody has mentioned anything about Ready Player One on here especially given the Spartans cameo.

Given the talk about video game movies, on a plot and story level it was fairly entertaining and well done. Not perfect; I felt like Wade’s home situation could have factored into things a little more, but whatever.

But the biggest thing that stood out to me was the downright regressive treatment of gender. Holy smokes was this movie troubling. It pretty much brought back the 80s action movie notion of women as trophy and accessory. Halliday completely eliminates any agency or humanity for Kira, who spends her existence literally on a pedestal waiting as a quest reward. She was almost exclusively seen and treated though his male gaze.

In true 80s fashion, the hero wins the girl just because he did something heroic, despite her initial rebuffs. I was wondering if Samantha had had a horrible disfigurement instead of a minor birthmark, or if she was a quadriplegic or something, Would Wade have been disappointed then?

Yeah the movie was fun, but it was shockingly backwards socially.

You weren't playing attention. The Kira subplot was explicitly pointed out as a false narrative. Your eagerness to take some regressive message from the movie is on you, but it makes me sad that you've adopted that filter. Thank goodness this film doesn't hit you over the head with a hamfisted agenda (one that I often do find regressive, because it's turning us all into chauvinists). Yes, a female character was impressed by a male's heroic acts, but that can't happen in fiction? It happens in real life and has happened and will continue to happen as long as human beings exist (men are impressed by the heroic acts of women, too, of course--and so it is in this movie, the female character is shown as more capable than the hero through most of the film). All of the gamer characters are heroic in this film--everyone ends us saving everyone else at one point or another. The fact that it takes a clan is part of the point. I think it's a gross misreading to say Wade claims Samantha at the end. Yes, his having the courage to kiss her is a triumphant moment, but importantly, there is a pause, and then she kisses him--they claim each other . On reflection I think I can understand why certain people might not like the movie--it goes against their religion which holds as sacred the view that what you are is the most important thing about you. A primary message of this movie is that what you are does not matter--what you do matters.

It was a good movie based on a better book. A lot of its appeal is based nostalgia for popular culture, so I'm not sure that it's great art, but it's fun.

You weren't playing attention. The Kira subplot was explicitly pointed out as a false narrative.

Um what? This has nothing to do with the wrong turn they take regarding the club.

Your eagerness to take some regressive message from the movie is on you, but it makes me sad that you've adopted that filter.

You are thinking too literally about this, like most people I think. I just saw A Quiet Place (which was fucking awesome by the way). Afterwards, there were numerous people in the group who complained the movie was sexist. Blunt only cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids, and is pregnant. Krasinski hunts and protects the kids. Therefore it perpetuated traditional gender roles and was sexist.

But was it? No! The traditional gender roles were sexist because the woman existed to serve the man. Honey I'm home! As if she now needs to drop everything because the king of the castle is here and he deserves he complete attention. The woman was en extension of the man, cleaning HIS house, cooking HIS food, and raising HIS children, without an identity of her own. She exists as accessory.

This was decidedly NOT the case in A Quiet Place, as both were equals in the relationship, both had distinct wants, goals and agency. They existed independently, but still made a family together.

Just because a film has a woman who is smart and capable does not mean it's not sexist. I mean, every Bond girl was smart and capable!

Yes women are impressed by men in real life. Again, that is not the issue. The issue is how they serve the story, and whether they are defined by a man or not. If as you say Samantha is the real hero, why is Wade the one rewarded, and rewarded with her as the prize? The story is not framed the way you seem to describe; she is a secondary character in Wade's story. Contrast this with A Quiet Place where Blunt was given story agency outside of her relationship with Krasinski.

You weren't playing attention. The Kira subplot was explicitly pointed out as a false narrative.

Um what? This has nothing to do with the wrong turn they take regarding the club.

Your eagerness to take some regressive message from the movie is on you, but it makes me sad that you've adopted that filter.

You are thinking too literally about this, like most people I think. I just saw A Quiet Place (which was fucking awesome by the way). Afterwards, there were numerous people in the group who complained the movie was sexist. Blunt only cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids, and is pregnant. Krasinski hunts and protects the kids. Therefore it perpetuated traditional gender roles and was sexist.

But was it? No! The traditional gender roles were sexist because the woman existed to serve the man. Honey I'm home! As if she now needs to drop everything because the king of the castle is here and he deserves he complete attention. The woman was en extension of the man, cleaning HIS house, cooking HIS food, and raising HIS children, without an identity of her own. She exists as accessory.

This was decidedly NOT the case in A Quiet Place, as both were equals in the relationship, both had distinct wants, goals and agency. They existed independently, but still made a family together.

Just because a film has a woman who is smart and capable does not mean it's not sexist. I mean, every Bond girl was smart and capable!

Yes women are impressed by men in real life. Again, that is not the issue. The issue is how they serve the story, and whether they are defined by a man or not. if as you say Samantha is the real hero, why is Wade the one rewarded, and rewarded with her as the prize?

I didn't say she was the real hero--she was one of many--the High Five. Importantly, she was the one who gave Wade reasons to win that moved his character beyond the lottery ticket fantasy. She gave him context, an understanding of evils of the IOI--without her he would not have known the stakes involved in losing. She was also integral in helping him learn the value of relationships. He matured, as evidenced by his actions when he won. You're the one making her into a prize with boobies. The film doesn't.

She gave Wade… She gave Wade… She was integral into helping him…

My point exactly.

She gave Wade… She gave Wade… She was integral into helping him…

My point exactly.

The film has a male protagonist. I'm describing important ways she helped him. If a male protagonist learns how to be a better person from a female, that's sexist?

In your first post you focused on a female character who's not a real person in the film and then by eliding Samantha's actions, painted a picture of a passive female character who is claimed at the end. That's just false. The Samantha character is at least Wade's equal. She's far from passive. Wade is never more than one step ahead. He wins a key. She wins a key. He could not have won the final key without her. Look at how the final two shots of them are filmed: they're mirror images of each other. Trophy and accessory my ass.

It was my and mine wifes 6 year anniversary. We were excited to see RPO as we had listened to the audio book a while ago. We went to dinner and we both ate too much. Having a 4 year old, going to the theatre for an adult movie was rare, so this was especially exciting. Upon entering the theatre, I started to not feel so well. 5 minutes into the movie and they had already covered the first 3rd of the movie. 20 minutes in and I was bolting from the theatre out of fear if committing bushusuru. (Google it.) Returning to my seat led to many moments of flop sweat, motion nausea and “wtf is happening in this movie?”

As they were obtaining the second key and loading the original book into a woodchipper, I said to my wife “we gotta go!” I could tell she was disappointed but understood my situation. In the parking lot she agreed that the movie was a total bastardization of the book, but considering the bar of nastalgia that the book set, we knew the movie could never match the book.

So we came home and watch The Disaster Artist. We really enjoyed it, as we are avid “The Room” fans. It also didn’t hold up to its bound counterpart but it hit the beats to tell the overarching story.

The end.

the movie was a total bastardization of the book

…which is why it's a movie and not a book. If you want exactly the same story, why not just read the book? One should judge a film on its merits, not in comparison to the book.

the movie was a total bastardization of the book

…which is why it's a movie and not a book. If you want exactly the same story, why not just read the book? One should judge a film on its merits, not in comparison to the book.

Shut it Miller! I'm allowed to compare a product to its origin material. And the RPO Movie STUNK in comparison to the book. Was it a good movie? I don't know! I had to leave halfway through but what I saw was (Charles Barkley impression) TURRIBLE!

I read (listened to) the book and you didn't so shushy!

But seriously, if you liked the movie then definitely check out the book. It's nostalgia overload to the max, the key challenges are WAY better and the handling of the characters (of which you seem to have the biggest issue with) are handled differently.

But seriously, if you liked the movie then definitely check out the book. It's nostalgia overload to the max, the key challenges are WAY better and the handling of the characters (of which you seem to have the biggest issue with) are handled differently.

The excerpt I've seen makes me NOT want to read it. It's basically porn:

The film has a male protagonist. I'm describing important ways she helped him. If a male protagonist learns how to be a better person from a female, that's sexist?

I haven’t seen it, but I think his point is that she exists solely to serve the male lead. She does nothing for herself, but instead is a plot device to give the lead male character knowledge or motivation or whatever.

It’s interesting, I thought the movie was somewhere between ok and good. But, the little cameos all the way through from Halo Spartans to Overwatch characters to so many others I can’t remember them all... that was kinda fun but almost superficial. It also leaves me wondering just how do you write quick cameos in book form...

So... yeah, I think I may need to try the book so I can do a good compare. Obviously, the book itself would be easy to find, but you keep mentioning the audiobook version. I typically get my audio books through iTunes and I see one narrated by Will Wheaton. Is that the one you’d recommend?

So... yeah, I think I may need to try the book so I can do a good compare. Obviously, the book itself would be easy to find, but you keep mentioning the audiobook version. I typically get my audio books through iTunes and I see one narrated by Will Wheaton. Is that the one you’d recommend?

Yes. We listened on Audible. Wheaton does a good job reading it too. :)

But seriously, if you liked the movie then definitely check out the book. It's nostalgia overload to the max, the key challenges are WAY better and the handling of the characters (of which you seem to have the biggest issue with) are handled differently.

The excerpt I've seen makes me NOT want to read it. It's basically porn:

Ooohh wwelll...my deepest apologies to the ever so holy Cody Miller. The greatest literary composer of our time. The Kanye West of the written word.

1. That paragraph was awesome and if you're telling me you wouldn't drive that car, you're either A. a millenial who's just "too cool" or B. a curmudgeon.

2. The whole point of the book is excess. Newsflash, the whole point of the 80's was excess!

I'll warn you now..I've had too many margaritas and too much time on my hands tonight. I will bury you and this thread if it's the last thing I do!!! I don't even remember what we are on about but....I've lost my train of thought.

All the same, I will come down on you like the hammer of Thor. The thunder of my vengeance will echo through these corridors like the gust of a thousand winds! I shall unleash my fury upon you like the crushing of a thousand waves! Be gone vile man! Be gone from me. I am untethered and my rage knows no bounds.

Actually, I'm pretty tired.

The film has a male protagonist. I'm describing important ways she helped him. If a male protagonist learns how to be a better person from a female, that's sexist?

I haven’t seen it, but I think his point is that she exists solely to serve the male lead. She does nothing for herself, but instead is a plot device to give the lead male character knowledge or motivation or whatever.

Nah. There’s a scene where its made clear that Will is infatuated with Sam and he makes a fool of himself. Because for him, the contest is about maybe having the chance to buy a mansion and get out of poverty and be rich. But she doesn’t fall for him. She isn’t there for him. She makes it dead clear that his little dreams are silly and worthless.

For her, it isn’t about the money or control of the virtual world. And it certainly isn’t about him. She straight up tells him that she’s there because IOI (the evil megacorp) sattled her father with debt then forced him into one of their work centers where he had to pay it off by working for months or years within the virtual world. And when he got sick and couldn’t work? They didn’t help him. They kicked him out and without income and drowning in debt, he died. Sam was there to avenge her father and to prevent the same happening to others.

This is crystal clear when he professes that he loves her and she starts with “you don’t even know me.” And from there, she end up leaving him behind mouth agape in a hallway. Why? Because for him, the whole contest was just a game. For her, it was personal, and real, and he was nothing but a distraction.

Going back further, the male lead first recognizes the girl becuase he has long heard of her skill and exploits, and because he watched her videos and acknowledges she is the best of the best. As best as I can recall, she doesn’t know who he is, because why should she? And again, the only reason they meet at all isn’t because she is drawn to him or anything like that. She is on her own quest for her own reasons. And had been for a long long time.

There is much in the movie you have to completely ignore to assert that Samantha is defined by Wade.

- No text -

It also leaves me wondering just how do you write quick cameos in book form...

Poorly. By far the worst part of the book is the deluge of pop culture reference lists. The format of film is much better suited to handling the volume of them.

Otherwise the book handles most of the storytelling better. Though, there are a lot of changed story beats from the book that I really don't think would have worked on screen. Unless they wanted to commit to Parts I, II, and III.

- No text -

- No text -

Not sure what version of the film Cody saw...

I have not seen the movie, and I don't want to yuck anyone's yum about the book — as obviously lots of people in this thread enjoyed it — but if that description you just wrote troubled you, Cody, do not read the book.

The sequel is weird too:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/excerpts-from-my-upcoming-novel-ready-player-two-girl-stuff

- No text -

The sequel is weird too:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/excerpts-from-my-upcoming-novel-ready-player-two-girl-stuff

I dunno. Maybe that's sexist.

- No text -

- No text -