Jump to content

Talk:Ready Player One (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:282:8100:9440:e023:b27f:bbb3:f492 (talk) at 04:29, 13 April 2022 (→Sequel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Timezones abolished

The epilogue for RPO says that the High Five closed down the OASIS on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, "Tuesday" and "Thursday" don't mean anything within a simulation in which virtual planets orbit virtual stars and spin at arbitrary rates. And since the OASIS is a world-wide phenomenon, "Tuesday" and "Thursday" don't mean anything outside it either because when it's Tuesday in one country it's already Wednesday in another country, and often when it's Tuesday in one country it's still Monday in another country. To implement Watts's idea would involve a rolling window of progressive access denial for subscribers around the globe, but the OASIS itself would remain up and running 24×7 hours to service everyone else for whom it is currently neither subjective Tuesday nor subjective Thursday. This non-sense comes to mind immediately when Watts announces this moderation measure. Since the book and film are clearly targetted at a market audience of spods and boffins and tantalises such intelligentsia with an easter egg to win a sci-fi trophy, the author is alert and competent, signifying that this is not an accidental oversight. I have not read the book. Does the book mention that the obsolete legacy timezones we struggle with today have all been abolished by the time the film is set and everyone observes only UTC? If so, then a globally objective "Tuesday" and "Thursday" exist and the OASIS can be closed down for two specific 24-hour periods each week. Could someone who has read the book please clarify this in the article? Thankyou! 49.180.42.193 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the book they don't institute days of the week where the game is turned off, if that's what you are asking. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ready Player One (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 01:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a stab at this one. Right cite (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts:, I tagged a couple of things with citation needed.
Pretty good job overall, I would change "Plot" to "Plot summary".
The general format custom is just Plot. Rusted AutoParts 05:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's okay to not have cites for the entire "Plot summary" section, but I would strongly encourage cites for the "Cast" section -- as especially because the "Cast" section is making statements over and above simple statements from the film.
Compare "Cast" sections for FA Ghostbusters II (simple, but still sources for statements), and Batman Begins (good sourcing here).
More comments to come soon.
Keep me posted, and good luck with the above improvements for now! Right cite (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 15, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing is of good quality. Introduction could be a bit longer, as it mentions nothing about Production and very little at all about Reception. Please expand, summarizing those sections more.
2. Verifiable?:
  • Cast section needs more citations for things that are not simple Plot summary. That is okay in Plot summary, but only in Plot summary. Not okay to have unsourced material in Cast section if it is beyond a simple list of the Cast.
  • Music = Joan Jett's song "I Hate Myself for Loving You" is also included in the movie, but not in the soundtrack. = unsourced.
  • Box office = It was the twelfth-highest-grossing film of 2018.[citation needed]
  • Future = A sequel to the original book by Cline, titled Ready Player Two, is expected to release on November 24, 2020.[citation needed]
  • Notes = IOI employees are called Sixers because their employee IDs are six digits long and begin with the number 6. = unsourced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Good job here, covers major aspects of article topic.
4. Neutral point of view?: Good job here, appears to be written in neutral tone.
5. Stable? No problems here.
6. Images?: Great job with the fair use on the movie poster.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Right cite (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll begin on this tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, okay thank you, take your time! Right cite (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Right Cite: Points addressed. Unsourced sentences tackled by @Chompy Ace:. Rusted AutoParts 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, thanks very much. Per MOS:LEAD, the lede should function as a standalone summary. The entire reception section has one sentence in the lede. Could that be expanded to a few choice selections? Also, please avoid "some said..." in the lede, leaves us wondering "who?" Keep me posted, Right cite (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right cite Added in production history details and a sentence about the extensive pop culture references. Rusted AutoParts 22:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, much better! Could still use more from reception. Right cite (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right cite I feel the reception section is well covered, by highlighting the most praised and criticized aspects. Rusted AutoParts 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, per MOS:LEAD, the lead should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. One sentence saying "some said this...", without mentioning who is the "some", is not sufficient. Right cite (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right cite but we can’t exact add to the reception line of the bill of what we can cover about it isn’t allowed. Which I don’t know is correct as I’ve seen plenty of film articles with a brief sentence in the lead about what was praised or criticized about the film. It doesn’t really read out as “some said” than it does a summary of what I said: what was praised and criticized. Rusted AutoParts 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, I'm saying you can mention a few of the sources and paraphrase what they said in the lede, briefly. Perhaps 4-5 sources. Right cite (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts, some good examples of articles with introductions that have just a teensy weensy bit more meat on the bones includes The Shawshank Redemption, Ghostbusters II, and Groundhog Day (film). Hopefully those are some helpful models as examples, Right cite (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t mean to be argumentative about this, but those films have had more time to have more appreciation and revisits over the years. RPO only has been out two years. All that can be noted has been. In regards to the sources you mentioned, it’s also generally preferred to not have sources in the lead section Rusted AutoParts 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, how about a choice selection mention of some of the most interesting or noteworthy reviews? Right cite (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really not sure how that can be done without it feeling like undue weight. I really do feel the line "critics praised its visuals and brisk pacing but criticized the character development" succinctly covers what all the reviews included broach on. Again, sorry if it feels like i'm being argumentative on this one point. Rusted AutoParts 01:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, no, it's okay, you're not being argumentative, you're being polite and responsive and great! How about we meet in the middle and compromise? I suggested above, 4-5 sources. How about a selection of 2-3? Right cite (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Right cite: Added two reviews. Rusted AutoParts 14:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, great job, looks much better! There are a few one or two-sentence long paragraphs scattered throughout the article. Perhaps these could be merged up or down or expanded, to have a bit better flow overall. Right cite (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I fixed up the duplicate references in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Right cite: Would you be able to outline the remaining issues you have? Just so that we can avoid the “I’ve done what you asked”; “okay here’s something else” back and forth. Rusted AutoParts 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts, great idea! Let's tackle the short paragraphs next, and then I'll do another once-over full read through, again, and re-assess any remaining holdover issues in a list form as you ask, after that. Right cite (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Right cite: I have tackled the paragraphs, leaving only the ones I felt needed to be kept split. Outline any other issues remaining and I will take care of them. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, okay thank you very much for your responsiveness and kind politeness. Will post up something more here soon. Right cite (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: my GA reviewer had been blocked indefinitely. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sockpuppet of the indef blocked user Cirt. Maybe we can ask for a second opinion on this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

@Rusted AutoParts: I have some comments for you :) Kingsif (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Variety stated that Spielberg's regular collaborator John Williams was planning to compose the film's score. However, in July 2017, it was reported that Williams had left the project to work on Spielberg's The Post instead, with Alan Silvestri hired to take over scoring duties for Ready Player One.
 Done, reworded Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was initially scheduled to be released on December 15, 2017, but was pushed back to March 30, 2018, to avoid competition with Star Wars: The Last Jedi
 Done, reworded Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japan's third frame held well during Golden Week with just a 6% drop from the last session. The total there is currently at $17.5 million. In its sixth weekend in China, it bumped up 10% from last session to lift the local cume to $220.2 million
 Done, reworded Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In China, the weekend was $2.4M to push it past Avatar (2009) as the no. 9 Hollywood title ever in the market with $213.8 million
 Done, reworded, numbers replaced with ordinals (no. 9 to ninth) Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can go ahead and remove the (YEAR) from after most if not all of the film titles. Sometimes it's appropriate, where the year is relevant or otherwise referenced, but adding it wholesale makes the article more like a press release (makes the prose read less easily). You've also inserted it into some quotations, which is weird. It's not needed, if someone wants to know the year, the wikilink is there to hover or click.
 Done all parenthetical years removed made myself Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation that starts What we did at one point was to have a card for every single character is just way too long to not be in a quote block, please put it in the appropriate template (My go-to example is this)
 Done, already placed a quote template Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
  • You could connect the second and third sentences to avoid close repetition of sentences starting "It [verbs]...". Just "and" would work to connect.
 Done Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • uses the virtual reality software OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation) to escape - you don't need to specify such a detail in the overview, just "uses virtual reality software to escape" would be better. The next sentence would need rephrasing to avoid mention of OASIS but this shouldn't be too hard.
 Done Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spielberg would sign on to direct - no need for a fancy tense :)
 Done, reworded Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...beginning in September. - though we can infer it's 2015 from the mention of the year earlier in the sentence, it's not clear, please add the year
 Done Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming began throughout England in - the use of "throughout" just makes this read weird, could the phrasing/structure be changed?
  • Same September issue at the end of this sentence
 Done, for both Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visual effects work led to Spielberg to regard the film as "the most difficult movie I've done since Saving Private Ryan (1998)". - it's unnecessary to use a direct quotation for this, especially in the lead, when you could just say "Spielberg found the film his most challenging since SPR due to the extensive visual effects". However, I also think this is too much detail for the lead, anyway.
 Done, rephrased Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on March 29, 2018, in Dolby Cinema, RealD 3D, IMAX, 4DX, and IMAX 3D - I haven't been able to find any other film article with a list of all its cinematic release formats in the lead
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remove ; reviews from outlets like Variety praised its visuals and pop culture references but saw criticism by outlets such as The Guardian for poor character development - lead is overview...
 Done Chompy Ace 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: all raised concerns seem completed by @Chompy Ace:. Rusted AutoParts 05:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Just pinging to see if there's anything else to address. Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add further comments. Kingsif (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot and Cast seem good
 Done for both Chompy Ace 00:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cline was set to write the script for the film - need to introduce Cline at first mention
 Done Chompy Ace 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Donald De Line and Dan Farah would produce - these can just be last names, as they've been introduced already
 Done Chompy Ace 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Village Roadshow Pictures came aboard to co-finance and co-produce the film with Warner Bros - this sounds like a press release line, is it possible to rephrase sentences like this in the production sections, at least a little bit?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready Player One is Spielberg's first action-fantasy film since The Adventures of Tintin. - is this necessary? And, if so, could it be incorporated better, it sticks out awkwardly among the production details.
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moby said that he had made an attempt to adapt the book into a film - are there any specifics on this, i.e. did Moby try to buy the rights, did he write a screenplay before learning the rights were taken, did he get a little camera and film his friends acting it out, or something more?
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development and pre-production could be re-titled Development and casting
 Done Chompy Ace 00:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole casting paragraph is also too press-line-y, especially confirmed as playing the lead role of Wade, after a lengthy nationwide casting call failed to produce an unknown for the part
 Done Chompy Ace 23:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phrasing can be helped with statements being made into sentences. By that, I mean to take a simple statement or multiple statements, and write it into an original sentence. E.g. Production was set to begin in July 2016. Screenwriter Zak Penn announced via Twitter on July 1, 2016, that the first week of filming had been completed would work better as "Production was slated to begin in July 2016, but on July 1, 2016, screenwriter Zak Penn confirmed that the first week of filming had already been completed"
 Done Chompy Ace 00:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Birmingham Livery Street right after that is a run-on and should be edited for grammar or broken into multiple sentences; I'd probably choose multiple sentences, as the next sentence about the chase scene could be connected to the previous statement about said chase
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of this paragraph about Birmingham seems more like a list, it doesn't flow very well
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the filming section is about Birmingham - was most of the filming done in Birmingham? If not, can the section get more equal coverage?
IMDB noted that filming was done at Warner Bros. London Studios and in Surrey but I could only reliably source the studio filming. Rusted AutoParts 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: I thought I'd do a search for "Ready Player One + filming location", which gave several reliable sources on the first page that list locations in London and Surrey. One of them even mentions it's set in Columbus, which should probably have a ref in the article. You can try Movie-Locations, The Location Guide, Atlas of Wonders, and The Knowledge; three of these are run by an editorial team of producers, the other by movie buffs, and they were all in the top 5 Google search results. Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:  Done Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the bulk of the visual effects shots with 900 in total - needs a comma before "with"
 Done Chompy Ace 23:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80 minutes of the final 140-minute film are set in the OASIS according to VFX supervisor Grady Cofer - this would be better with "according to VFX supervisor Grady Cofer," at the start, rather than end; it would prevent a numerical immediately following punctuation and makes the clauses of the sentence flow better (not ending a sentence on what is effectively an aside)
 Done, removed as unsourced Chompy Ace 05:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spielberg remarked that "this is the most difficult movie I've done since Saving Private Ryan." - this seems oddly out of place and needs some connecting to the VFX
Added the context that the film necessitated multiple hours long meetings each week to address the VFX required for the film. Rusted AutoParts 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 23:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple sentences on Doctor Sleep which seem much more relevant to that film; the Doctor Sleep production team borrowing this film's CGI and using its VFX team as consultants is a production fact relevant to that film, and trivia for this film. Trivia is fine but we don't need all the details.
 Done, reworded sentence, removed Doctor Sleep reference, and replaced source: Buzzfeed to The Hollywood Reporter (generally reliable) per WP:RSP#Buzzfeed, which has the reliability unknown status Chompy Ace 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Visual effects and post-production section could just be titled Visual effects: there's no mention of other post-production services
 Done Chompy Ace 22:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On June 9, 2016, John Williams was originally to compose the film's score - this needs some rewording
 Done Chompy Ace 23:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with vinyl and cassette releases projected for the summer - do we know if these releases happened?
 Done removed "for the summer" Chompy Ace 00:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready Player One, as in the book, - please make more encyclopedic. You're not having a chat with someone.
 Done, removed "as in the book" Chompy Ace 00:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • well over a hundred references - ditto. Just "over a hundred" would suffice.
 Done Chompy Ace 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With This task was eventually made easier thanks to Spielberg's reputation in the film industry. Spielberg and producer Kristie Macosko Krieger spent several years securing the rights for the copyrighted elements used in the film long before filming began, knowing that some scenes would not be possible without certain copyrighted elements. In the end, Spielberg estimated that they managed to get about 80% of the copyrighted elements they desired, noting that in some cases, the filmmakers were able to secure rights for some but not all the characters they wanted. it's taken three sentences to repeat/expound on the idea that Spielberg's reputation helped in securing rights, something he began the process of before the film's production, but not all copyrighted material could be secured. That's really all that needs to be said. Any rephrasing to be more concise and less condescending (it sounds to be explaining like the reader is slow) would help
I took out the middle section about the length of time it took securing rights. Will that suffice? Rusted AutoParts 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In negotiating with Warner Bros., they could not secure Close Encounters of the Third Kind from Columbia Pictures, despite the latter being one of Spielberg's first films as director - this sentence only refers to one film, so "the latter" is just not necessary/inaccurate as it could be seen to refer to Columbia Pictures. I also don't see the importance of it being one of Spielberg's first films - just one of his films is fine
 Done, removed despite the latter being one of Spielberg's first films as director sentence Chompy Ace 08:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand just about any part of the paragraph about Tomb of Horrors. Hopefully this can be edited for clarity.
 Done, reworded sentence about it Chompy Ace 23:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chompy Ace: I still don't understand, but I think I know why: I've never read the book. The fact that something didn't end up in the film should probably mention it was in the book. It also seems strange to say that because the screenwriter was a fan of X, this means Y wasn't included... which is what I think it says? Also shunning the copper key's original location for a reference-packed race for the key is probably too descriptive, rather than encyclopedic. I may not be understanding completely, but how about something like: "In the book there is an adventure module, which is not included in the film; it was excluded due to Cline being a fan of Tomb of Horrors and instead choosing to make references to this product during the main race." Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, reworded per Special:Diff/995826821 Chompy Ace 02:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Blade Runner] was off-limits - encyclopedic phrasing, please
I think this one's  Done, can't find this particular sentence. Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chompy Ace: did you do this one or am I just failing to see where it is in the article? Rusted AutoParts 00:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
totally  Done, reworded per source Chompy Ace 00:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to avoid competiting - is that a word? In either case, "competition with" works better
 Done Chompy Ace 23:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SXSW doesn't need to be in parenthesis
 Done, now South by Southwest Chompy Ace 23:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPD VideoScan First Alert chart - it should probably be explained what this chart measures
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made on a production budget of $175 million, with about $150 million more spent on global marketing costs, the film needed to gross at least $440 million in order to break even. - still TMI; the relevant part is that it made back its costs, which this ref could be used to cite
 Done, removed "Made on a production budget of $175 million, with about $150 million more spent on global marketing costs," or the former two sentence(s), and reworded the latter sentence Chompy Ace 02:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow there are way too many box office specifics. Please trim, we're not an industry finance publication.
@Kingsif: Which aspects should be trimmed? Just so I know which ones not to remove. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: I'd honestly remove the entire "Other territories", just put a summary of worldwide gross in a sentence. If it had any big premiere in another country that could be mentioned. In the North America part, it doesn't need to mention the other films released on the same day, projected gross is probably too much coverage, especially when the actual gross does match it. Daily summaries are also too much detail, the four-day gross should be fine. Is the fact it was Speilberg's biggest opening since 2008 important? No need for summaries of each week and comparing it to other films. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I culled Other territories, merged North American stats so it's just an overall Box office section. It's NA/Worldwide difference note din the first sentence. Rusted AutoParts 23:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 23:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RogerEbert.com is a brand name that is stylized in italics (please add italics)
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to wikilink "pop culture"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spielberg's dichotomization of fantasy and reality - if your average American adult has a 10th grade reading level, I don't think "dichotomization" is in their wheelhouse, sadly
Switched it to "separation". Rusted AutoParts 03:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception section suffers from the same issue as many critical reception sections: one paragraph of mostly single-quote sentences. Better reception sections connect different elements of review and group and summarize them, with particularly good/useful quotations included.
I think this one is  Done like most of the film articles. Chompy Ace 00:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think does not count on this. Chompy Ace 00:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I believe everything has been addressed. Rusted AutoParts 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts and Chompy Ace: One reply each on edits, and I don't know if you've seen AaronSprouse's comment above but that is probably worthy of inclusion. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

WP:UNDUE refers to minority viewpoints. Cline's statement is not undue because it was widely reported and accepted by reliable sources. Until there is a new source which contradicts Cline's statement, this statement is true and should remain in the lede. Remember, WP:VNT. Your assertion that this information is out of date is pure WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I strongly advise you to stop edit-warring, stop it with your personal attacks, and discuss here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exercise in sophism, though in reality it often is with these borderline film cults espousing misinformation. As far as your edit war goes, please take your own advice, with you and your meat-puppets.
For starters, Cline himself is NOT a source. Verifiable sources are. If this is so obvious then please find MORE sources that corroborate this. Certainly for a sequel in development there should be several. The only real one is from 2020, the same interview simply repeated on sites like IMDB. Nothing since.
The speculative claim is already mentioned in the body, albeit supported by an out of date barely reliable source. The filmmakers themselves have said nothing about a sequel, with only the author of the book mentioning it, as far back as 2020, which is/was ONLY in "early development" at best. Since then the book sequel was released and panned by both audiences and critics. Again, please find more recent sources to corroborate. Otherwise this remains an WP:UNDUE violation.
To repeat myself, The source listed (A) is NOT corroborated, (B) doesn't really belong in the lead as it is simply speculation by the author of the book, NOT those who made the film, and (C) and also represents a WP:UNDUE violation- translation: you are giving a flimsy source that is nearly 2 years old undue wait. Get better sources! Otherwise this claim misleads the reader in the way it is presented.
Again, for the umpteenth time, the speculation about "a sequel in the works" is by the author himself, from an old source nearly 2 years ago from a less than speculation source to begin with. To mention it in the body is one thing, so present it as undeniable fact in the lead is simply misleading and smacks of both misinformation and fan-based wishful thinking. There isn't any direct, reliable source to corroborate the claim. Further adding doubt is the fact that major movie databases do NOT even list the alleged sequel in pre-production. You seemingly have been around long enough to know this.
Also, having delved deep into this, even Kline himself admits to 'said' speculation, alleging at best over TWO YEARS AGO that a sequel is only possibly in "early development" at best, which given the time since then (and the lack of any new sources since then) casts doubt that this has been properly green lit. Please stop engaging in what is called WP:GAMING, and WP:PAGE OWNERSHIP. The fact that we are even leaving that nonsense in the body at all is more than a compromise. Please learn to compromise as well. It makes a mockery out of wikipedia to POV war over such an unnecessary petty thing.2601:282:8100:9440:E023:B27F:BBB3:F492 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ready_Player_One_(film)&oldid=1082431342"