Talk:Ready Player One (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Production companies

Do not add any unsourced production companies to the article with out a reliable source. Spshu (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Amblin Entertainment, Reliance Entertainment and RatPac-Dune Entertainment must be there because it is from a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDVD (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I check the sources and they are not there. --Spshu (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• the Wrap: "Donald De Line and Dan Farah are producing the movie for Warner Bros., which acquired the novel in June 2010. Village Roadshow will co-finance and co-produce the movie with Warners, whose Jesse Ehrman will oversee the project for the studio."
• Deadline: "In a high six-figure upfront deal, Warner Bros and De Line Pictures won a heated auction for screen rights to Ready Player One, the debut novel by Fanboys screenwriter Ernie Cline."
• Variety: "The Warner Bros., Village Roadshow and DreamWorks release is based on the buzzy Ernest Cline book of the same name. Spielberg, Donald De Line, Dan Farah and Kristie Macosko Krieger will produce, with Bruce Berman serving as exec producer."

Don't see Amblin, Reliance or RatPac-Dune. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg is producing the film through his Amblin Entertainment. This should not be removed, Spshu, because it is one of Amblin Entertainment Films.

(User talk: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.33.213 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliance has been involved in every single DreamWorks production since 2010. This should not serve as an exception. 86.25.212.81 (talk 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing indicating Amblin Entertainment as Ablin Partners is also Spielberg's company too of which Amblin Entertainment/Television is now a part of and owns the DreamWorks label. Reliance is an investor in Amblin Partners to what extent is unknown given the others investing (Spielberg, Participant Media and Entertainment One). Ablin Partners general operate independently thus Reliance's involvement is not automatic. Nor is it automatic due to Spielberg's participation that it is an Amblin Entertainment production as it can be a DreamWorks Pictures film. You don't get to change what label Spielberg put films out through. Spshu (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

error or difference from the book?

In the book, Wade is from Oklahoma City, and only moves to Columbus about halfway through. 65.118.97.26 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As the movie's not out, we have to wait and see, but it should be noted that documenting any differences between work and film needs to be supported by secondary sources, even if its clear that they omit the OK City part in the film. Such differences can be considered WP:TRIVIA so only if others note them should we include them. --Masem (t) 21:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultural references

Anything added to the cultural references subsection has to be cited to a reliable source. Watching a YouTube video and identifying things yourself is not enough. Do not add anything without a source. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Character descriptions

The details about the characters, their actions and motivations, are plot details and belong in the plot summary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary that was added yesterday by an anonymous editor was entirely too long, which is why I reverted it. This has nothing to do with spoilers, it is entirely about plot length. Restoring an absurdly long plot and then arguing that it can be edited down is ludicrous. The brief summary was adequate until such time that the film is actually released. At that point, it can be expanded. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If it is too long, it can be fixed (hence why I added the long plot template), but it is not appropriate to remove it just because its too long. This is actually how many many many film articles work, from what I've seen, and common to most works of fiction is that the first plot attempt is far oversize but a few edits can easily fix it. --Masem (t) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Someone will get around to fixing it eventually. Sometimes poorly-written film plots do languish for years, but not on popular articles like this. If nobody else does it, I will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it was entirely appropriate to remove it. What was inappropriate was to revert to the longer version with no talk page discussion. Per WP:BRD, after the anon's expansion, and my reversion, the matter should have been brought up here on the talk page. Instead, TheMovieGuy violated BRD by reverting to the longer version. TheMovieGuy violated BRD 3 times in 24 hours by reverting edits in the plot and cast sections. He has still not posted on the talk page to explain any of his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that it is inappropriate for YOU to remove the plot summary. Your argument is that it is too long, which is why we added templates. The summary can be edited down. You have no strong justification to entirely wipe the summary out The Old Jacobite. TheMovieGuy (also, i apologize for not coming to the talk page. Completely slipped my mind.)

Yes, I did have a justification, and I stated it in my edit summary. The summary was ridiculously long and there was no harm in reverting to the stable version. Frankly, the idea that we should leave an absurdly long summary in place, in the hope that was someone would trim it, is ridiculous. And you should have posted here before you reverted, as I have already said above. Likewise, you should have posted here before reverting to your version of the cast list. But, as you say, it "slipped your mind." ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not good enough justification user. As Masem stated above, “This is actually how many many many film articles work, from what I've seen, and common to most works of fiction is that the first plot attempt is far oversize”. The first plot summary will be too long - that doesnt mean you remove it entirely. That means you trim it down. TheMovieGuy (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we already had a plot summary, which was sufficient for a film that had not been released. There was time for it to be expanded to a reasonable length. But, this is clearly a waste of my time, so I'm going to stop. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That was NOT a plot summary! That was a synopsis! This IS clearly a waste of time my fellow user. Good day. TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox cast

While most of the posters for the film lack a billing block, there are some that do have it, eg [1]. These are less frequently seen compared to the current one, but they do exist and can be used for the infobox cast list. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but the version we are using has no billing block. When the infobox cast list was expanded, what was the basis for the addition(s), and on what basis would I revert? At that point, it was just editor's making their own decisions about which cast members are important enough to be listed. As with other article problems – like the constantly expanding cultural references section – it comes down to editors making claims that are not supported by references. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The cast list that was inserted follows the billing block of said poster. It seems perfectly reasonable. I haven't found any other poster that has a different cast list in a billing block, if it has a billing block (it's not like the Time Bandits situation). And clearly, the movie starred people, to omit it because the more common film poster omitted it seems silly. --Masem (t) 17:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it was silly at all. The poster in the infobox is the source for the cast list that is also in the infobox. This is standard policy. If the poster has no billing block, what source should be used? Or should editors simply be allowed to add whichever cast members they feel are important? That is what would be silly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There are WP:V-meeting source for a poster that has a cast list. Its not silly to use that. --Masem (t) 18:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't silly. When did I say it was? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, I fully understand we don't want ppl adding their preferred cast list, and relying on billing block normalizes that out to avoid any arguments. This is a Good Thing (TM). So now we use common sense here: we have multiple posters for this movie (I'm ignoring the parody posters , but even w/o that there's around 6 or so variations), but only a few use a full billing block; those that do use a consistent billing block. This can be shown by WP:V. We are not using one of those for the infobox image, but that doesn't mean a billing block doesn't exist at all. The logic being presented here is not sound "the poster version we are using doesn't have a billing block, so we can't include one". --Masem (t) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning your motives or seriousness. I've seen your editing for long enough that I know your commitment to and understanding of what we're doing here.

That said, if there's a poster with a clear billing block, why aren't we using it in the infobox? Wouldn't that make all our lives a lot easier? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Because its not the most common poster, from what I've seen. But that doesn't mean we cannot use the billing block from a less-visible (but WP:V-meeting) poster for the cast. It is improper to insist that the shown infobox image must meet the poster used for the billing block. As long as we include the link to the reliable source where the poster is found on this talk page, the billing block remains verifyable even if the poster shown doesn't give that. --Masem (t) 04:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

The grammar in the following sentence isn't correct. OLD: Wade ideas of looking at the virtual OASIS archives to sneak into Halliday's personal life to potentially discover a hint to finish the first quest. SUGGESTED: Wade begins looking at the virtual OASIS archives to study Halliday's personal life seeking to discover a hint to finish the first quest. Paul Nevlud (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done It looks like a word got missing ("ideas" is not a verb, though "ideates" is, but that's really confusing then). I did a different bit of wording but same idea. --Masem (t) 15:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A possible part for the criticism section

I'm not yet 100% how appropriate this is, but there's a couple articles that point out that the differences between the reception of the 2011 book and this film are due to the perceptions that changed as a result of the Gamergate controversy (Vox, ABC News) which placed the novel and the film in a different light on release. But I've only got a couple sources (contrast this to 2016's Ghostbusters, where there are no end to sources discussing similar issues), so it might be premature to include, without a few more sources to back that up. --Masem (t) 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

There's a dispute over whether the lead should include a consensus statement (see this diff). It recently turned into an edit war, and both sides have violated the three revert rule, which says nobody should revert more than three times on the same page in a 24 hour period. @Mabromov: can you please explain here why you think this should be removed? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:

The link sourced is based only on the initial 6-7 reviews from the SXSW festival. It's not an accurate statement at all, and it's too soon to make a final consensus like that. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes right now, the reviews are almost all pretty positive, yet the consensus statement currently written fails to mention this at all (making it sound like it's getting a mixed response). I think we should wait for the film to be released, as the majority of reviews are still being added. Then, we make a final consensus statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabromov (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

they’re all prominent sources, though. It doesn’t say “the film received mixed reviews” it merely points out what many critics have been noting, that the narrative is a flaw. To not include that would be disingenuous. And many critics have seen the film; to wait 24 hours for its general public release also seems excessive. TropicAces (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

@NinjaRobotPirate: @TropicAces:

Again, the links you provided are only based on the initial 6-7 reviews from the SXSW festival. Making a final consensus based on that is disingenuous (especially since a lot more positive reviews have come in since).

If the narrative is a flaw, include that in the critical response section, not in the opening paragraph. Usually, the opening paragraphs just state whether a film received critical acclaim, positive reviews, mixed reviews, or negative reviews. Anything expanded is including in the critical response section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabromov (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

On cultural references

I've been seeing RSes that have attempted to document all the cultural refs in the film with some lists exceeding 50 or so elements. I think we're going to have to recognize trying to document every single one is going to be impossible and should only focus on the references that have been given more context for their inclusion in the work according to the producers; for example, this would be something like the BTTF Delorean as one of Speilberg's concessions, the Iron Giant as a replacement for Ultraman, etc. We can link to these RS lists as a source, and say there's numerous refs to films and video games of the period, and then highlight the essential ones, but we do need to be careful since I suspect newer editors/IPs will want to add their "favorites". --Masem (t) 14:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

EG as links [2] [3] [4] (and I've seen more). --Masem (t) 17:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a complete list, just a handful of major ones that highlight how the film incorporates more than just the 1980s, and changes because of access to Spielberg's films. An external link could be used for a "complete" list of cultural references. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Character names in the cast section

Please try to use the names of the characters as shown in the closing credits so if their real names are not listed there, do not list the name right away. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Characters in closing credits are listed as virtual name / given real name, like Parzival / Wade and Art3mis / Samantha. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Poster billing block questioned?

Can someone provide a link to a poster that shows the actors' names in the billing block? The graphic as shown in the infobox doesn't list any of the actors. Lena Waithe was billed fourth in the closing title cards sequence on the actual film, so she should be listed if a billing block was not available. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[5] is one that does have a billing block. --Masem (t) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "wrong" facts about the movie

It may be true that the movie improperly describes Pitfall or Adventure, but unless a reliable third-party source notes this, and makes a significant detail out of it, it is not appropriate for us to include, as that is original research for all purposes. That is, just because we know the movie says you can "complete" Pitfall and we can pull a source that says that you can't complete Pitfall, us making that decision to include is original research. We're not here to document movie mistakes that otherwise go unnoticed in mainstream media. --Masem (t) 03:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Political paradigm?

96.40.132.38, you added "The inclusion of a male protagonist was also criticized as being out of step with the current political paradigm" Where is this sourced? I don't see anything in the uploadvr article discussing politics or a male protagonist or out of step. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality of characters

Aledownload the nationality of the characters is not discussed in the film. The characters in the film adaptation could be all Americans for all we know. Please don't add that original research unless you can back it up with reliable sources from the press kit and if it has significance beyond WP:FILMDIFF. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

List of clues

The list of clues is completely unnecessary (both here and the novel), outside of how they come up in the plot summary already. It's not anything that third-party sources have really gone into and thus violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. --Masem (t) 16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently the intro says "some critics said the film's plot was an improvement over the source material."

That is totally WP:UNDUE because the references used to suggest that the film is better than the book are weak whereas a lot more critical reviews say the film is crap and a pale reflection of the book's plot. This statement is a violation of WP:CHERRYPICKING.

In fact the whole article stinks of paid editing. Warner Bros isn't stupid. It's spent millions of dollars on this pile of CGI doo doo so it's not going to let the Internet's most likely "go-to page" about the film tell it how it really is. Sure it's got some great visual moments but that doesn't cover up the fact that the film is panned WP:COMMONSENSE. Spielberg just went full on "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" because he's well past his best and just couldn't be bothered to respect the source material. The reviews I have read all say this ie Vox, Wired, Hollywood Reporter, etc.

It's a lousy movie and should be treated as such. WP:SPADE.

Besides it's vested-interest articles like this that just keep perpetuating the belief that this site is corrupt and its editors are in it for personal gain. 86.139.50.71 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you support your accusations of paid editing with any evidence? If not, then the above just comes across as a personal rant opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

One source says, "Ever since the book’s original 2011 release critics have been quick to point out a multitude of issues with the quality of writing, issues with representation, and a generally poor narrative pieced together by undeveloped and gratuitous nostalgia bait. While the film doesn’t appear to magically fix all of the story’s issues, it does seem like it’s able to succeed in some surprisingly great ways instead." The other source says, "Reviews say that the adaptation of Ernest Cline's hit sci-fi novel succeeds where its source material fails, with brisker pacing. But its character development is lacking, and its politics about 'true fans' feels achingly regressive." The contested sentence does not seem stemmed in either quote, so I would support rewording it based on the quotes or removing it entirely. However, the critical reception is positive per Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)