GRcade

Yeah, it's easy reading and full of enjoyable references.

Not every book needs to be deep and meaningful. It works for what it is, and I think the film will work too, especially with Spielberg in charge.

Yoshimi wrote:Ready Player One was a fun teen book. Didn't really set out to be anything deeper or grander than that i think. It seems to be getting a lot of hate lately, but I really enjoyed it.

Thing is, the Harry Potter books are fun teen books too. As are series like Mortal Engines and Mazerunner. They are all, apparently, decent reads. Ready Player One however contains paragraphs like this:



From everything I've heard, it's The DaVinci Code/Fifty Shades of YA fiction.

The problem is thinking references are in any way entertainment, rather than just you know, someone or something saying the name of something or someone from pop culture. Hopefully there's more to the film (Spielberg is at the helm after all) but from the trailers so far it just looks like junk for people who collect Funkos

Skippy wrote:The problem is thinking references are in any way entertainment

Yup. There's another paragraph out there which is basically The Council of Elrond if Elrond decided to reference 1980s pop culture buzzwords rather than the history of Middle Earth.

Coincidentally, this is doing the rounds again on Twitter

twitter.com/LyleMcDouchebag/status/692483069064933378

Doesn't even rhyme.

I get the feeling the show is watched by people who don't like any of the shows mentioned and just enjoy laughing at a bunch of nerds. I dislike the show purely because the main character is just so unlikable that I can't believe anyone would put up with his gooseberry fool for more than a few months even if he was paying the entire rent and I also agree it just isn't funny.

Rudolphin wrote:

Yoshimi wrote:Ready Player One was a fun teen book. Didn't really set out to be anything deeper or grander than that i think. It seems to be getting a lot of hate lately, but I really enjoyed it.

Thing is, the Harry Potter books are fun teen books too. As are series like Mortal Engines and Mazerunner. They are all, apparently, decent reads. Ready Player One however contains paragraphs like this:

From everything I've heard, it's The DaVinci Code/Fifty Shades of YA fiction.

Also, if I'm remembering this correctly there's another paragraph which is literally just a list of old games that the main character's played. Like, it adds nothing to anything. It's literally just a list of video game names.

The book is full of references and shameless attempts to cash in on unearned nostalgia. It was enjoyable enough though.

Like TBBT, it tries to tap into nerd culture but forgets that the thing that nerds hate most is mainstream popularity.

The authors next book was strawberry floating horrendous. I don't think they will have another hit anytime soon.

I enjoyed the book. It cost about £4.99 and took me roughly two weeks to read.

It has a lot of references to the band Rush.....I didn't know anything about Rush, but the author likes them.

I've played loads of gooseberry fool games and watched loads of gooseberry fool movies....but I still went ahead and did it.

If you enjoy it, then good for you. If you hated it, then at least you read it.

I've just seen that the author is writing a sequel to Ready Player One. Ready Player Two perhaps?

What's wrong with funkos exactly? I don't collect them, but they look quite nice.

Saigon Slick wrote:What's wrong with funkos exactly? I don't collect them, but they look quite nice.

They take any and every popular character and/or figure of note and turn them into bland, homogeneous blocks of plastic which they sell for exorbitant profit to idiots who want to show how many pop-culture references they are aware of.

Like Skippy correctly asserted: references in of themselves are not entertainment.

Rudolphin wrote:

Saigon Slick wrote:What's wrong with funkos exactly? I don't collect them, but they look quite nice.

They take any and every popular character and/or figure of note and turn them into bland, homogeneous blocks of plastic which they sell for exorbitant profit to idiots who want to show how many pop-culture references they are aware of.

Like Skippy correctly asserted: references in themselves are not entertainment.

The Funko design is just woeful, it simultaneously robs character designs of what made them great and offers no character of its own. If the base look was better, I wouldn't have a problem with them. The Disney Infinity figures are a good example of that kind of thing done right. They found a stylised way to give a host of characters a single cohesive look that also looked great itself.

Rudolphin wrote:

Saigon Slick wrote:What's wrong with funkos exactly? I don't collect them, but they look quite nice.

They take any and every popular character and/or figure of note and turn them into bland, homogeneous blocks of plastic which they sell for exorbitant profit to idiots who want to show how many pop-culture references they are aware of.

Like Skippy correctly asserted: references in themselves are not entertainment.

Not discussing Ready Player One at all as I have neither read the book nor bothered to watch the trailer, but I'm really not seeing the problem with Funkos/Pops at all. Apologies if I've picked this up wrongly, but this post and Skippy's underlying point about "junk for people who collect funkos" just screams of an unwarranted superiority complex over a perceived intellectual gap between those who are smart enough to see funkos for what they are, and those who quite like having a miniature depiction of their favourite characters. Like, pop culture references in and of themselves are not entertainment, but that's not really what those things are.

I'll reserve judgement on the film until I've seen some reviews.

EDIT: FWIW I take the opposite view - I thought the Infinity stuff looked quite cheap and nasty, but I quite like the design of the Pop figurines. My GF got me a Dug one not long after we started going out because it reminded her of my dog, I thought that was a nice touch and a thoughtful gift(rather than homogenised trash).

Skippy wrote:

Rudolphin wrote:

Saigon Slick wrote:What's wrong with funkos exactly? I don't collect them, but they look quite nice.

They take any and every popular character and/or figure of note and turn them into bland, homogeneous blocks of plastic which they sell for exorbitant profit to idiots who want to show how many pop-culture references they are aware of.

Like Skippy correctly asserted: references in themselves are not entertainment.

The Funko design is just woeful, it simultaneously robs character designs of what made them great and offers no character of its own. If the base look was better, I wouldn't have a problem with them. The Disney Infinity figures are a good example of that kind of thing done right. They found a stylised way to give a host of characters a single cohesive look that also looked great itself.

I agree, and feel the design of the Funkos themselves are indicative of the purpose they serve. The Infinity figures are faithful representations of the characters that people love. Funkos are melted down to the point where recognition of reference is their sole purpose.

EDIT: Still, the use of 'idiots' was harsh and uncalled for.

Mortal Engines trailer. Although it does its damndest to convince you of the fact, this is not directed by Peter Jackson after all. Rather it's Christian Rivers, one of the VFX heads at Wingnut. He's been rumoured to be helming a Damnbusters remake for years but obviously that's fallen through (no doubt the dog was involved).

The concept is fascinating so I was a little disappointed to see it's based on a YA novel. Still, I actually downloaded the first in the series and have been blasting through it. All very "Maze Runner" so far.

As for the trailer itself: that's some super conspicuous CGI right there. I mean, there's no way they could have gone full photorealism but it does look very cartoonish.

Weren’t they just meant to rename the dambusters dog “Digger”?

So, this is a thing.



I am a male and I have nothing but positive things to say about this.

myrrh heat than light wrote:So, this is a thing.



I am a male and I have nothing but positive things to say about this.

Well, it does have James Corden in it, but the rest of the cast

All the way through that trailer I thought it was missing that certain something. Then, popping up like a turd that won't flush, there he was.