Ya, having read Ready Player One, I was a little unsure what was going on in the last half of the trailer. My guess is because the video games featured in the book are likely only recognized by gamers in the 80s, they have changed things to generic fictional video games... maybe also for copyright reasons and they avoid having to pay for the rights?
Yeah, this book and watching The Goldbergs has totally rekindled my 80s upbringing.
It would also be very cool/meta if there were a hidden game within the movie. I feel like Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind - I'm seeing patterns in the trailer where maybe there aren't any. Is that lens flare, or morse code?
Ya, having read Ready Player One, I was a little unsure what was going on in the last half of the trailer. My guess is because the video games featured in the book are likely only recognized by gamers in the 80s, they have changed things to generic fictional video games... maybe also for copyright reasons and they avoid having to pay for the rights?
True. It's also good that Spielberg owns 90% of 80's american pop culture.
I'm a big fan of the book and of the 80s material that the book leaned on extensively, but even with all that I have to say that it was almost an over-saturation.
The story was kind of 'meh' but he begged your forgiveness with Nostalgia, which, for a time, I think I was willing to grant, but over time if you beg for too much forgiveness you're going to run out.
Hence the disappointment of Ernest Cline's next book.
I guess my concern is much like this trailer was packed and packed with little nods and obvious references, its like the filmmakers, much like the writer, are patting themselves on the back so hard with their nods to the 80s and the source material that the bobble-head effect of their own approval has come at the detriment of the film.
"Oh they're going to love all the cool stuff that they missed! We are SOOOO clever!!!"
You're not clever, you're just overloading the scene with more stuff than people can realistically notice in a single viewing.
Thats what worries me. Instead of trying to make a good movie are they more concerned about shoe-horning all of this stuff into it?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
I hate when people say things are easy that they don't understand, but is it too much of a stretch to imagine they could make a good movie and shoehorn a bunch of nostalgia into it?
Cloud Atlas for comparison had a budget of $128.5M USD and made $130.5M.
Jupiter Ascending had a budget of $176M and made $184M.
I suspect those budgets don't include the advertising either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Luc Besson was responsible for directing, screenwriting, and producing "Lucy", which made over $400 million on a $40 million budget. The studios are obviously giving him a lot of rope as a result.
I agree the potential for this to be another Jupiter Ascending is pretty big. I'd say that Cloud Atlas was it's own pretentious kettle of fish though. Jupiter Ascending was also kind of weird and bad. Good word of mouth could save this film.
The Fifth Element did triple it's budget and make about $270 million, which is probably closer to $400 million in today's dollars. Another thing to consider is that the European audience is likely to be bigger here, due to the Besson's previous successes in the EU.
Can we call it a box office bomb yet? Has a 54% on RT.
$17M opening weekend, compared to Dunkirk's $50.5M.
I find the entire Horror-Genre to be so low-brow stupid.
That movie looks good. Not generic slasher nonsense, it looks good.
It seems to be borrowing a bit from the nostalgia factor of Stranger Things, at least from that trailer. I think it will be good though. I should attempt to re-read the book, from what I remember it was one of Stephen King's longest books at that time and I couldn't get into it.
