Talk:Ready Player One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force.


Talk:Ready Player One Is this the place to say how amazing this book is? (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Jono

No, this is for discussing the article only. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The reception section needs a reference to the poor writing -- the book can be downright painful to read at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor writing seems like a personal opinion, unless you can find a source from a critic who has said something about it. Good sources used to explain the references used in the book. Dotytwo (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary incomplete[edit]

The plot summary is gravely incomplete, and as of right now just a teaser. Is this page supposed to sell or to inform? --Paniq (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a new "Plot summary", because what it has now is a detailed plot description and not a summary at all. (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited out the promotional bumpf and edited for brevity, but the plot summary is still woefully incomplete. Ross Fraser (talk)

The Plot summary is very poorly written. The entire plot is spoiled, and written out of sequence and confusingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

... and now the plot summary is gravely incomplete again. The anonymous user above who said it was "very poorly written" gutted it back down to just a plot teaser. It doesn't matter that the entire plot was spoiled: Wikipedia contains spoilers. On the good faith assumption that the plot summary was out of sequence, and since I haven't read the book, I won't restore the plot summary myself. But if someone who has read the book wants to use old, full plot summary as a starting point to fleshing it out again, here's the last revision it was in: -- (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fleshed out the summary a little more — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the old one around. I've been reconstructing the summary from scratch as I've been reading it, but now I can borrow some of the phrases of the previous one. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The plot needed 2 or 3 more details and some fixing. For example, it talked about "Sixers" attacking Og's birthday party and didn't explain what they were. It's not "plot bloat" to add important points that are missing. I hope you're not only counting words.-- (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick of "Wikipedians" who think they own their pet articles and refuse to let new people improve them. Is Wikipedia going to run out of paper or ink if I add a few important details that take up less than a paragraph all together? Isn't the rule that you're supposed to discuss changes, not decide on your own that somebody else's work is worthless? I know this book very well and I'm trying to help so that the plot summary is accurate and makes more sense for people who don't know the story or have only seen the movie. It's still missing two things: how Wade survived the assassination attempt and that Art3mis cut off contact with Parzival for months after Og's party. These are important details and there's no reason to keep them out. You should save your holier than thou attitude for people who come here to mess things up.-- (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're feeling a bit hard done by here, I don't think anyone is doubting that you had good intentions with your edit. I do agree that the two things you mention are missing. I disagree with you that they are important details. Plot sections are supposed to be summaries of key events, not the entire narrative. This one is already long compared to other articles, and therefore I think the current version is better without the two plot no points you mentioned. Scribolt (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

book published after selling movie rights to book?[edit]

The article reads The book was published by Random House on August 16, 2011. and Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film in June 2010.. So after Random House got the publishing rights to the book, it took them over a year to actually publish it? If it was so good that they paid $500K for the rights to publish it, and so good that a major film company bought the rights to it straight away, it shouldn't take that long to see print. Dream Focus 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't write a whole book into a ready-to-print stage and then take it to a publisher. You take a first draft at most, or an outline and samples, or maybe if you're Stephen King you just taken an outline, and then the publisher decides whether they want to buy in. The film/TV rights to the book are usually sold at some time between that point and the completion of the finished draft of the book. (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It all depends on the book. It's really not possible to generalize about subsidiary rights in the way that you have. The original question about sale dates is a valid one and merits more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pop Culture References[edit]

The pop cultural references in this book are extraordinary. I feel like there needs to be one of two solutions: either this is something that is left to the RPO fans on a separate, RPO wiki, or the references should be a new page in wikipedia (a la the "discography" page of big or long lasting bands).

Almost every world, NPC and artifact references something different in the book. I feel like a separate page is the only way to do it justice.

Datakid (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I mean the page where he lists all of the things he has studied is a lot alone. Furthermore, I feel that a reference would need to be more clearly defined. Is any comment regarding a work such as "scanning the room like A T-1000" a reference to Terminator or would it need to be directly stated, such as stating that their are planets modeled after those in Firefly? Or would you need to go even further and say it must be a major plot point such as Tomb of Horrors? I would argue that any comment about the work should be regarded as a reference in which case I agree we would need a new page for it. The section on this page could be used just for major plot references, such as Tomb of Horrors, War Games, and Zork. While containing a reference link to the page with all the references. --AndrewJPF (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that any list of references from this would be just too all-encompassing and time consuming, you may just as well reference the 80's itself, or link to an article on 80's geekdom (if such a thing exists) - PipersPeter — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but wasn't Ferris Bueller's Day Off also referenced in the book? -- (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this section - it's basically trivia, only of interest to fans of the book (and perhaps not even then). Lots of books and films are filled with pop culture references; we don't usually list them all. If you want to make such a list, do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Such a list should be on a wikia, not here, as per WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:FANCRUFT. However, ones essential to the plot such as Tomb of Horrors and WarGames can be retained. The author had been trying to stuff in as many references to video games and music of the time as with The Wedding Singer and Pixels. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC) updated 18:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Spoiler alert[edit]

This article should come with a huge Spoiler alert on top of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepcz (talkcontribs) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ALL WP articles on fictional books contain plot summaries and none contain "spoiler alerts". If readers don't want to know how the book ends, they (presumably) won't read the plot summary. Ross Fraser (talk)

WP:SW Llamabr (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded the character list so that the character's real names (Aech, Art3mis, Daito, Shoto) aren't immediately up front, but introduced appropriately in the book like near the end, and also gave the appropriate weight. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Aech's identity[edit]

Spoiler though it be, Aech's identity should probably be listed with the other characters, per Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Most people know by now that Wikipedia has spoilers, I suspect. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The nicknames of the main characters should be sufficient. There's little to no value in including the real names of the characters, especially in this case where the characters are in their alter egos most of the time, and there is this kind of spoiler involved as well. Manabreak- (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the character names section down to include only one name for each character except for Wade/Parzival. While Wikipedia doesn't censor, the extra information was superfluous. --Sennsationalist (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've restored Aech and Art3mis as the common names for their character. What their real or full name is not important in the character name. The only ones that are obviously multiples are Wade / Perzival and Halliday / Anarok. Wade3 is not a notable nickname for the character for it to be bolded. Same with Owens as middle name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gene Wilder rumor[edit]

I removed the Gene Wilder rumor. In the comments of the linked to article [1] it actually states that the original sourced article [2] that it's simply an author wishing that such would occur. Spielberg is courting Wilder for a different movie and the original author simply wishes that Wilder would do this one as well. There's no rumor... -- (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that Wilder died in 2016, this can probably be put to rest. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


Film Adaptation[edit]

should a new page be created for the film adaptation since a lot of news is coming out now? JJsCat (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It is currently being drafted at Draft:Ready Player One (film). Reach Out to the Truth 02:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton is not the VP[edit]

The Wil Wheaton character is the VP of the players council. Someone please change that. -- (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2016

Enjoy. --Shibbolethink ( ) 02:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed his exact political position as it isn't really important to the story, however, I did reference that the audiobook was published coincident to the book release and added the chapter/page reference in case someone wanted to look it up where he is mentioned. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Rush 2112[edit]

Please change 'and after playing "Discovery", the third track from their album 2112' to 'and after playing "Discovery", the third movement from their song 2112.

Editor note: The song 2112 is the first track on the album 2112 and Discovery is the third movement of that song. Nokeeo2112 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed to: after playing "Discovery", the third movement from the title track of their album 2112 AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone with access levels, kindly correct the story.

Film adaptation[edit]

This whole section is just a list of announcements of casting decisions. There’s nothing about the film itself. I’m going to take it all out. Richard75 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Location of the stacks[edit]

From the article:

 Teenager Wade Watts lives with his aunt in Columbus Ohio, in the "stacks"

Just this morning I was reading the bit where Sorrento bombs the stacks, and I coulda sworn it was in Oklahoma City. I reckon IOI's HQ was in Ohio, and Wade moved there once he achieved some financial freedom, but that the stacks were in OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's Oklahoma City. The stacks in Columbus is only for the film adaptation. See Gizmodo book excerpt: [1] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Setting the year[edit]

I've changed the setting of the book back to the 2040s. [2] The book jacket cover lists 2044 as a starting year, but February 11, 2045 is the date that Parzival finds the first key (chapter 0), and February 10, 2045 is the first login date (chapter 1). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)