Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
Fan BoysDD* wrote:And +1 for Rush - how have they not been used in movies up till now?!?!
Eyes Wide Shut.McNutt wrote:I blame A.I. on Spielberg more than Kubrick, who batted damn near 1.000.
It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of it was a Kubrick movie that Spielberg took over. That's like designing a movie for Jack Nicholson to play Jack Nicholson in and then once you get rolling just shooting with Tom Cruise instead.McNutt wrote:I blame A.I. on Spielberg more than Kubrick, who batted damn near 1.000. Spielberg will occasionally pull out a Saving Private Ryan or Catch Me if You Can, but then he'll follow it up with Indiana Jones IV or Lincoln.
I wonder if I would like it better after all of these years. That movie disturbed me too much to really pay attention if it was good or not... or really what the point of it was... Kubrick is actually someone I would give another chance to and assume the problem with the movie was me. Especially when it comes to being disturbed. He's done a number of movies that disturbed me greatly but I still thought were wonderful. Full Metal Jacket and Clockwork Orange never fail to make me cringe and yet I'd watch them again and again.Isgrimnur wrote:Eyes Wide Shut.
Maybe, but since I've liked everything I've seen by Kubrick I'm thinking that the Spielberg touch is a big reason I hated A.I.LordMortis wrote:It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of it was a Kubrick movie that Spielberg took over. That's like designing a movie for Jack Nicholson to play Jack Nicholson in and then once you get rolling just shooting with Tom Cruise instead.McNutt wrote:I blame A.I. on Spielberg more than Kubrick, who batted damn near 1.000. Spielberg will occasionally pull out a Saving Private Ryan or Catch Me if You Can, but then he'll follow it up with Indiana Jones IV or Lincoln.
I completely loved Eyes Wide Shut. That movie was fascinating and it, as well as the shots of Kidman's ass, stuck with me for a long time.Isgrimnur wrote:Eyes Wide Shut.
The trailer does nothing to explain the plot of the book. It only provides a glimpse of the setting. You should read the book first. Or listen to Wil Wheaton read the audio version.Rumpy wrote:I haven't read the book and maybe I should, but that trailer made it look very generic. Saw very little of the 80's influences talked about aside from the music. I can only hope a newer trailer comes along to give me a better impression.
probably shouldn't, as it's not good. cringe-inducing, actually.Rumpy wrote:I haven't read the book and maybe I should
[X]hitbyambulance wrote:probably shouldn't, as it's not good. cringe-inducing, actually.Rumpy wrote:I haven't read the book and maybe I should
The writing in the book is not super great, but being from the 80s, I enjoyed my read of it, even while knowing as I read it that I was being shamelessly pandered to. I have no desire to read it again and I might see the movie or I might not, depending on the quality. This book == beach fiction for me, something that enjoyably passed the time but that I would certainly understand if other people didn't enjoy it.Shinjin wrote:From my reading of the book, I figured that if you grew up in the 80s with videos games, you would likely love it. But the writing itself is not that good.
I loved it.
https://theoutline.com/post/2076/ready- ... -movie-bad'Ready Player One' is a terrible book and it will be a terrible movie
You guys are harsh. It's entirely possible that the movie will suck, but I don't understand the hate towards the book. It's not War and Peace, but I enjoyed it enough to listen through the audiobook twice inside of three years.GreenGoo wrote:This article title made me laugh. I kinda agree with it.
https://theoutline.com/post/2076/ready- ... -movie-bad'Ready Player One' is a terrible book and it will be a terrible movie
I'm glad I'm not the only one!Moat_Man wrote:Counter argument. I am also the target demo and I loved it. Don't let GreenGoo scare you off. Based on it's popularity at the very least you will probably enjoy it. I am with gbasden.
Heh. I'm willing to accept that peoples' tastes run different, but Wheaton's reading was objectively crappy.gbasden wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one!Moat_Man wrote:Counter argument. I am also the target demo and I loved it. Don't let GreenGoo scare you off. Based on it's popularity at the very least you will probably enjoy it. I am with gbasden.
PS, Wil's reading was fantastic!
In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find out part of why I found the book mediocre was because I had to listen to Wil at the time.
Irrefutable fact: Lincoln was better than Saving Private Ryan.
Well I did like the part where he killed vampires with his trusty axe.
Seriously? I love history and Lincoln was WAY more boring than it should have been. When they finally voted, was it really necessary to have each member pause for 15 seconds before giving their vote? It's not building up tension when you do it twenty times AND we already know the outcome! Did we need to hear Lincoln's watch tick that loud just because the sound guys managed to record the ticking of Lincoln's actual watch?
There's some pretty iffy stuff going on with the main female character mostly existing to be the love interest/prize for the protagonist, and the two Asian characters being paper thin and also just happen to dress up like samurai. 
I started it, but let's not fight really.McNutt wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:47 amSeriously? I love history and Lincoln was WAY more boring than it should have been. When they finally voted, was it really necessary to have each member pause for 15 seconds before giving their vote? It's not building up tension when you do it twenty times AND we already know the outcome! Did we need to hear Lincoln's watch tick that loud just because the sound guys managed to record the ticking of Lincoln's actual watch?
Agh, don't get me started on Lincoln. Spielberg definitely has talent. He has wowed me on many occasions. But I can't stand at least half of his movies. And some of them I despise. He's a wait-for-video guy now.
Shrug to both of those. If you're going to have samurai (and this is the kind of book that is going to have samurai, we're just lucky they weren't ninja samurai) it's completely fine that the samurai be Asian. I mean, it's not a caucasian thing. Sure it's cliched, but that's just part of the mediocrity.Chaz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:27 am You haven't looked hard enough then.
I mean, I agree with you, but I simply don't care. I've watched a billion movies without ever seeing the cover art, so to speak.
Huh. I, for one, loved A.I. One of the few films I bought (other than kid movies) on physical media. I've watched it maybe 3 or 4 times. Lots of flaws, to be sure, but the epic scope hides a lot of layers and philosophical complexity.McNutt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:42 pmI have a love/hate relationship with Spielberg. For every good move he makes, and some of them are amazing, he makes one that is just awful. This gives me the A.I. vibe big time. That's not a good vibe BTW.DD* wrote:That looked pretty darn good - and this sort of film is right in Spielberg's wheelhouse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On this we agree.
I think the layers were too hidden.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:02 amI, for one, loved A.I. One of the few films I bought (other than kid movies) on physical media. I've watched it maybe 3 or 4 times. Lots of flaws, to be sure, but the epic scope hides a lot of layers and philosophical complexity.
I felt that the movie tried to overcome its shortcomings with fancy CGI and I was never interested enough to care. Spielberg has a way of putting me off. He's very prolific, but unlike Scorcese, he is not consistent. For example, I have a strong dislike for all of these movies:
Really enjoyed that book. Not going to win any literary awards, but it was a very fun read. YMMVhitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:08 pmprobably shouldn't, as it's not good. cringe-inducing, actually.Rumpy wrote:I haven't read the book and maybe I should
+1Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:02 amHuh. I, for one, loved A.I. One of the few films I bought (other than kid movies) on physical media. I've watched it maybe 3 or 4 times. Lots of flaws, to be sure, but the epic scope hides a lot of layers and philosophical complexity.McNutt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:42 pmI have a love/hate relationship with Spielberg. For every good move he makes, and some of them are amazing, he makes one that is just awful. This gives me the A.I. vibe big time. That's not a good vibe BTW.DD* wrote:That looked pretty darn good - and this sort of film is right in Spielberg's wheelhouse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Amazonhitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:08 pmprobably shouldn't, as it's not good. cringe-inducing, actually.Rumpy wrote:I haven't read the book and maybe I should
That doesn’t happen until we’re actually making the movie. Put it this way, I took some huge liberties in the script. Not as many in the book. If you had to license the stuff in the book, it would cost a billion dollars. You write a script, you take your chances, you say, ‘This is what we’re going to do. This is where we’re going to take cars and scenes from these movies and these properties, and then you hope that you’ll get the rights to it, but we’re not at that point yet. I just finished the script. When you start getting into production and casting, that’s when you would start going through and saying, ‘Okay, can we get the rights to Donkey Kong?’ or what have you. It’s very different in a film like that than it is in a documentary where you can just declare fair use and do it.
The first part of your post is exactly how I experienced it. My sister passed it on to me, knowing I'd love it and I did. I mentioned it to a friend of mine (that used to post on here quite frequently), and his response was surprisingly meh. "Is that the one with all the 80's crap? Yeah, I got a couple of chapters into it but lost interest."Buatha wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:10 pm As a child growing up in the heyday of most of the references in this book, I absolutely dug it. Sure, it's a total nostalgia trip, but I felt that was part of the goal. The story is an interesting premise on why people in the future would embrace the 80s and the various uses of knowledge was put to good use for the "quest".
I have a friend who I thought would also love it, and his opinion was quite the opposite of mine. He felt the author was just throwing out 80s trivia for the sake of it and didn't enjoy the story at all.
My main concern is how they're going to handle all of the IP rights since the story was all over the place with references to so many different property owners of TV shows, games, movies, robots...it would be a legal/monetary mess to stick close to the source material.
From Zak Penn (Screenwriter):
"He was then asked about the process of using all these iconic games and pop culture references in the movie. Had the licenses already been cleared or how did that work?
That doesn’t happen until we’re actually making the movie. Put it this way, I took some huge liberties in the script. Not as many in the book. If you had to license the stuff in the book, it would cost a billion dollars. You write a script, you take your chances, you say, ‘This is what we’re going to do. This is where we’re going to take cars and scenes from these movies and these properties, and then you hope that you’ll get the rights to it, but we’re not at that point yet. I just finished the script. When you start getting into production and casting, that’s when you would start going through and saying, ‘Okay, can we get the rights to Donkey Kong?’ or what have you. It’s very different in a film like that than it is in a documentary where you can just declare fair use and do it.