Talk:Ready Player One (film)

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)

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)

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 Your assertion that this information is out of date is pure WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION.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)

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)

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) also represents a WP:UNDUE violation- translation: you are giving a flimsy source that is nearly 2 years old undue weight. 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 spectacular 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)

Given that Cline was involved in developing the screenplay for the first film, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve him as to the production status of a second film. It is up to you to show sources that dispute Cline's claim. Yes, there's likely no film in any production registery because it still sounds like it is in pre-production but that still means it is in development, unles you can prove otherwise. --Masem (t) 04:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Your reasoning is tantamount to WP:OR. And you are being WP:POINTY. Wikipedia requires a consensus of verifiable sources from the media over a proper time frame. Hence, why this is WP:UNDUE. Duh. By being this willfully obtuse you are basically trying to game this, which is why WP:GAMING was created to deal with your 'agenda-trolling'. NO point in debating this with you if you refuse to be substantive and sincere.2601:280:CB00:265D:F0F6:EE9D:3FF6:5B4E (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This is your last warning to stop edit-warring and stop your personal attacks. Comments such as Get a life people!, you and your meat-puppets, and non-sensical pseudo-warnings that are basically vandalism by editors with an agenda are not constructive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Also, and I have to say, smart guy... you are engaging in a basic lame fallacy when you ask me to prove YOU wrong. No, the burden of proof relies on YOU. Otherwise, it is called an appeal to ignorance fallacy. i.e. If you claim Santa Claus is real, then it not up to me to prove he does NOT exist, etc. Surprised for someone who is "an admin". Assertions of fact require hard evidence, period. 2601:280:CB00:265D:F0F6:EE9D:3FF6:5B4E (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a source saying a sequel is in development. We do not have a source saying a sequel is not in development. How is it up to us to prove you wrong? You are the one engaging in WP:OR by claiming that the source is inaccurate. Again, please read WP:VNT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, THANK YOU for posting that link. Please refer to the part of WP:VNT that clearly says, quote, "Sources [plural] must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy ON DUE WEIGHT." So, please, find MORE sources to corroborate this. Again, it is enough that it is in the body, where the context properly informs the reader about this outdated speculative claim. Leaving it in the lead, however, gives the (false) impression that there is a serious sequel in the works, and gives this claim UNDUE WEIGHT. 2601:280:CB00:265D:40BF:5553:1BC1:5095 (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

For everyone else tuning it, the lead of any article should be concise and only mention that which is notable. This film was essentially a box office disappointment for Spielberg and it is laughable to suggest that a sequel is in the works when not even the filmmakers themselves are interested in doing this. The book sequel was poorly received by critics and audiences alike, all but killing any hope for a film sequel. And since 2020 there has been no mention of a film sequel other than speculation by only the book author himself of which even he confesses was "early development" at best. Taking all this into account, hardly notable enough to include in the lead of article. Any news about "a sequel" is basically a footnote on this forgettable film and it's enough that it is mentioned as the footnote it is in the body. Nuff said.2601:280:CB00:265D:40BF:5553:1BC1:5095 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

All that (that the film did poorly, that the sequel book did poorly) is speculation and original research on your part in trying to contradict a statement made by Cline only two years ago. Getting a film to the production stage absolutely takes time. It would be fair if Cline made that statement ten years ago and there was nothing to collaborate any further development of the film, but waiting for news about a film from a two year old statement is easily within Hollywood's time frame. --Masem (t) 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article body. Now, generally speaking, it is possible for a sequel film or a film adaptation to be announced to be in development and to never get any public updates about it. (Hard to report on something that does not happen, especially when development work happens behind closed doors.) But the timeframe here is not that big. It's not even two years, it's shy of one year and four months. I'm fine with a single sentence about a sequel in development at the end of the lead section. As for when to revisit and determine this information as stale, maybe a year from now? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Navboxes

Do we really need this many navboxes? It seems completely unnecessary (and a bit overwhelming) to have so many unrelated navboxes. On a laptop's admittedly small display, this is absurdly large and takes up the entire screen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we do. But even if we keep them, the size problem can be solved with {{Navboxes}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it an intentional goof?

Given that the whole movie lays out gamer culture, even from back in the day referencing the Atari console, this might be intentional on the part of the movie makers. During the movie, they make such a fuss over which Atari games that are being played, even showing an Atari console in the IOI HQ, but at the end of the movie, when Wade meets Halliday, his younger self is playing on a ColecoVision console (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColecoVision), not an Atari. It even appears to be an Atari game, not a Coleco one. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)