Rules: explain why

Ready player one.

That has to be one of the cringiest movies I’ve seen, is tries so hard, too hard with it’s “WE LOVE YOU NERD, YOU’RE SO COOL FOR PLAYING GAMES AND GETTING THIS 80S REFERENCE” message and the whole “corporation bad, the people good” narrative seems written for toddlers… The fan service feels cheap and adds nothing to the story.

Finally, they trying to make the people believe that very attractive girl with a barely visible red tint spot on her face is “ugly”… Like wtf?

Yet it received decent reviews plus being one of the most successful movies of that year.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Nolan movies are like wine; you have expensive wine and you have cheap wine. The price of the wine doesn’t guarantee an enjoyable flavour, but the the expensive kind comes in a nice looking bottle and gives a certain air of class when you present it.

    Nolan movies are the expensive wine. I still often enjoy Nolan movies (except for Tenet); even if the expensive wine tastes bad, the bottle looks nice on the shelf.

    But… I’m not seeing the cryoto-fascist part. You’re going to have to explain that one.

    • 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      But… I’m not seeing the cryoto-fascist part. You’re going to have to explain that one.

      Comes from the Dark Knight trilogy. The Patriot Act is used to catch the Joker, and Bane is a vilified Occupy Wall Street.

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        The Patriot Act is used to catch the Joker

        Wasn’t the entire message behind that arc “nobody should weild this power” and that’s why they destroyed it…?

        • 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          That would seem to be the message we are intended to take away from the film, however this is contradicted by the fact that our protagonist uses this power and it works. Alternatively, the films message could be interpreted as: Nobody should weild this power, but sometimes it’s necessary to stop someone who “wants to watch the world burn”.

          • papalonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            I do see your angle, and agree it can be interpreted this way, but I’m not sure I’m convinced this was intentional, or that a significant number of people had the same take away. If Cameron had the Patriot Act in mind (which he certainly could have), I feel it’s more likely that he made a weak attempt at showing us that it’s bad to use such power, rather than a veiled attempt to say “but sometimes it’s ok”.

            To each their own though! Thank you for sharing this perspective.