# Ready Player One (2018)



## Lucien21 (Jul 22, 2017)

Trailer for the new Spielberg movie.

Loved the book, hopefully this will do it justice.


----------



## williamjm (Jul 22, 2017)

Lucien21 said:


> Trailer for the new Spielberg movie.
> 
> Loved the book, hopefully this will do it justice.



It's quite a good trailer, but I'm a bit surprised it doesn't make any mention of the main plot about the Easter Egg Hunt, I suppose maybe they're saving that detail until a later trailer.


----------



## Dave (Jul 22, 2017)

Looks good, but got to wait until 2018?


----------



## Cli-Fi (Jul 22, 2017)

Lucien21 said:


> Trailer for the new Spielberg movie.
> 
> Loved the book, hopefully this will do it justice.



This movie looks awesome!!!!!


----------



## EJDeBrun (Jul 22, 2017)

OMG. Just saw this. Uhhhh. I have no words.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Jul 22, 2017)

williamjm said:


> It's quite a good trailer, but I'm a bit surprised it doesn't make any mention of the main plot about the Easter Egg Hunt, I suppose maybe they're saving that detail until a later trailer.



They might not want to give away too much for those who haven't read the book (of which I am one). Fans get butt hurt about trailers that reveal any such information. So this was perfect.


----------



## williamjm (Jul 23, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> They might not want to give away too much for those who haven't read the book (of which I am one). Fans get butt hurt about trailers that reveal any such information. So this was perfect.



I generally think trailers that don't explain too much of the plot are a good thing. That said, explaining the basic premise that is set up in the first chapter of the book and which will probably be explained in the first ten minutes of the film shouldn't really count as a spoiler.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Jul 23, 2017)

williamjm said:


> I generally think trailers that don't explain too much of the plot are a good thing. That said, explaining the basic premise that is set up in the first chapter of the book and which will probably be explained in the first ten minutes of the film shouldn't really count as a spoiler.



I really do wonder how many people go into movies without knowing anything about them anymore. Does anybody actually stand in line wondering what movie to go see and then just pick one at random without knowing the plot???


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 23, 2017)

I've not read the book, so I'm not sure what to make of the film trailer:


----------



## Lumens (Jul 23, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> I really do wonder how many people go into movies without knowing anything about them anymore. Does anybody actually stand in line wondering what movie to go see and then just pick one at random without knowing the plot???


Not in the cinema, but at home I will. Especially if it is scifi. If the acting or dialogue is bad I switch off pretty quickly but I love watching movies without knowing the plot beforehand.


----------



## Vince W (Jul 24, 2017)

A couple of scenes from the trailer looked pretty accurate to the book, but there's a lot that seems different. It will be an odd film for people that didn't grow up in the 80s, but I'll definitely be giving this one a look.


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2017)

WOOOOOOO 


I just really really hope we get Duel. I want to see those ostriches!


----------



## Cli-Fi (Dec 10, 2017)

It's very rare that I think a second trailer is better than a good first:


----------



## The Bluestocking (Dec 11, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> It's very rare that I think a second trailer is better than a good first:



I'm going to see this movie on the strength of this trailer.

And Spielberg's name.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 5, 2018)

Just saw the movie.

I will go out on a limb here and say that the movie is as good as the book.

However it is mostly the same story told differently

Movies have the problem of cramming a book that takes 5 hours to read into a film usually lasting less than 2.5 hours.  *Ready Player One* did a better job of that than *Ender's Game* even though it was altered more than *Ender's Game*.  That is strange.

RP1 might be more difficult to take in without having read the book though.  It just picks you up and drags you in too fast if you have no idea what to expect.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Apr 5, 2018)

I haven't read the book but I saw the movie and... I liked it! I didn't find it hard to take in though... but maybe that's because I'm a pop culture geek anyway?

Spielberg is definitely back on form with family-friendly action adventure with READY PLAYER ONE.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 6, 2018)

I have been reading reviews of RP1.  I find this one particularly stupid:

Steven Spielberg’s Oblivious, Chilling Pop-Culture Nostalgia in “Ready Player One” | The New Yorker

There is no mention of Earnest Cline but the critic trashes Steven Spielberg like he wrote the whole thing.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Apr 7, 2018)

psikeyhackr said:


> I have been reading reviews of RP1.  I find this one particularly stupid:
> 
> Steven Spielberg’s Oblivious, Chilling Pop-Culture Nostalgia in “Ready Player One” | The New Yorker
> 
> There is no mention of Earnest Cline but the critic trashes Steven Spielberg like he wrote the whole thing.



This critic and I must've not watched the same movie...

In any case, I didn't quite like that the protagonist was a White Male Geek (and the female character is actually a better player than him but in the end he was the one with the glory) but it's adapted from a book and not an original screenplay so I let it go. 

Also, from what I heard, the book isn't great and Spielberg had to rework the story structure a helluva lot to make it appealing to wider audiences. I certainly liked it - if not for Spielberg's storytelling touch, I doubt I would've.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 7, 2018)

The Bluestocking said:


> Also, from what I heard, the book isn't great and Spielberg had to rework the story structure a helluva lot to make it appealing to wider audiences. I certainly liked it - if not for Spielberg's storytelling touch, I doubt I would've.



I heard about the book in 2011 but did not check it out myself because it was about gamers.  But then a buzz developed around it so I tried it.  I won't go so far as GREAT but I think it is very good.  Consequently I tried *Armada* and never finished it.  *Armada* is what I had expected *Ready Player One* to be.

I am not a movie buff and certainly not a Spielberg fan, so I would not try to guess how much of the change from the book to the movie was Spielberg or Cline or the other guy involved in the screenwriting.  But the book could not fit in 2 1/2 hours and most moviegoers are not novel readers.

Did you notice that the *Iron Giant* shot a beam from his eyes like Gort in *The Day the Earth Stood Still*?  The *Iron Giant* did not do that in the animated movie.

The book shows more about the real world than the movie.  Diato and Shoto were in Japan, Samantha was in Seattle, Wade moved from Oklahoma to Ohio after his aunt was killed.  

This covers the comparison much better:

Ready Player One: Book vs. Movie


----------



## kythe (Apr 25, 2018)

I finally saw this movie, and really enjoyed it.  The basic outline was the same as the book, but the story played out was completely different.  Fortunately, this had the effect of maintaining my interest since I never knew what would happen next.

One thing I wish had been emphasized more was the significance of Aech's hidden identity.  There are some rather deep cultural implications with this character that the movie glossed over too quickly.  Daito and Shoto didn't have to be such minor characters, they could have been expanded a bit as well.  Each of them, along with Wade, were much more reclusive in the book.  The movie skims over the "darker" side of gaming personality.

I did like the expanded role of the Sixers.  They can be seen as real people with job security, not just sellouts working for the evil corporation.


----------



## janeoreilly (Apr 25, 2018)

Took my 13yo to see it as she really enjoyed the book (I've got some issues with the book which I think is quite sexist in places but she's 13 so her view is somewhat different). It was OK. I couldn't say it was any better than that. One thing that I do think is a problem is that it doesn't quite know its audience - it is a young film with YA characters, but it doesn't work for a teenage audience because the pop culture references are those that would entertain a 50 yo man. So for example, the whole scene with the shining meant nothing and confused her.


----------



## AlexH (May 4, 2018)

I haven't seen The Shining and that scene didn't confuse me.

I enjoyed the film. My favourite reference I spotted was a Battletoad at the head of the charge near the end.


----------



## Onyx (May 4, 2018)

I probably won't see it. One critique I read was that the main character prevails in part because of his knowledge of video game trivia. Which would be an awesome way of wrapping up Jeopardy, but seems like an odd criteria for "saving the world".


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 5, 2018)

Onyx said:


> ...an odd criteria for "saving the world".



Saving the world and saving the OASIS are different things.

One of the disadvantages of the movie relative to the book was not showing much about the real world.


----------



## Onyx (May 5, 2018)

psikeyhackr said:


> Saving the world and saving the OASIS are different things.
> 
> One of the disadvantages of the movie relative to the book was not showing much about the real world.


My understanding was the that aptly named OASIS is the only world left worth saving.


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 5, 2018)

Onyx said:


> My understanding was the that aptly named OASIS is the only world left worth saving.



The statement indicates that you should read the book and see what Art3mis said she would do with the money if she won.  Even the movie wasn't that shallow, but it might not come across very well in one viewing of the movie since it went by so fast.

The idea of shutting down the OASIS for 2 days a week was to push people into reality more and that was not in the book.  In the book it was obvious not all of the people in the OASIS were gunters.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 21, 2018)

I have listened to *Ready Player One* audiobook again.  Overall the movie is not as good as the book but *Daemon* by Daniel Suarez is better then *RP1*.

Daemon-Daniel Suarez


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2018)

I just watched this and loved all the pop culture/gamer references. i have never read the book, so can't make a comparison. I enjoyed it, but it might have been a little too long, and the "corporate greed" "evil corporation" plot was a little clichéd (though when the book was published it probably wasn't.) If the film glossed over the real identities of some of the characters (as @kythe says) then that was a mistake. That would have added some gravitas to the plot which it needed.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 26, 2018)

Enjoyed it mostly but God, it was about 20-30 mins too long. 

Preferred the female lead to the really vanilla Male lead. 

But overall I liked it. Lite and fun with some really enjoyable pop references. 

pH


----------



## Rodders (Nov 26, 2018)

I watched this quite recently. It was okay, enjoyable, but I found the whole thing pretty silly in the end.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 26, 2018)

Rodders said:


> I watched this quite recently. It was okay, enjoyable, but I found the whole thing pretty silly in the end.



The book gives you a better feel for life in 2045 than the movie does.  The movie ending by shutting down the OASIS two days a week is BS.

It sort of depends on what trends you see in the world as it is NOW and trying to extrapolate what might happen by 2045 and what to do about it now.  Is it just a movie that you decide about for entertainment or is it a potential extrapolation.  Anybodies extrapolation is sure to be wrong but 2045 is coming no matter what.

I have tried poking the system in the eye.
Economic Wargames: How the economic model is unsustainable and enslaving.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 27, 2018)

Watched this again recently and really enjoyed my second viewing. Just some thoughts:



The Bluestocking said:


> In any case, I didn't quite like that the protagonist was a White Male Geek



I loved that he was a White Male Geek - his geekiness just seems reflective of wider gamer culture to be honest. Did you equally have a problem with Aech being a Black Female Geek?

I thought the casting was good, all the portrayals and acting was solid. Good casting choices IMO, although I would have liked Daito and Shaito ages/differences to be closer to the books though.



Phyrebrat said:


> Preferred the female lead to the really vanilla Male lead.
> pH



When you say really vanilla are you talking about naivety?

The Wade in the books is a lot more sceptical and in the books Wade is probably the best gamer and gunter on the globe.

I thought Atr3mis, Aech and Wade were great choices of casting. I also thought Sorrento was a good choice. I didn't like the changes to Og and really wanted him to wreck IOI in the disco scene.

Overall I really liked the film but the book is so much better, I just think it's a hard book to adapt.

Interestingly Spielberg removed a lot of pop culture references to films he made or had involvement with.

Some of the scenes are pure geek out moments, I expect licensing for some parts would have been a nightmare but I can live with the changes. ☺


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 27, 2018)

@SilentRoamer. Totally agree with you about the male protagonist needing to be a white boy. To have a girl or any other ‘minority’ to settle the passion of militant equality delegates with no sense of context would’ve been a huge own goal. More importantly it would have served only to erase or revise the white maleness of geek culture’s origins. 

My thing about his vanilla-ness wasn’t just his naivety but also he was just a bit meh. I didn’t care for him. The girl was far more interesting and skilled and the port wine mark gave her a deeper story than his simple ‘we broke!’ one. 

In fact Aitch had more depth of character than the main. (I don’t recall his name).


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 27, 2018)

@Phyrebrat I never said the male protagonist needed to be a white boy, a male was probably better suited due to the male dominance in geek culture but I think Art3mis or Aech could have both been the protagonist without any loss to the story. The protagonists race is completely irrelevant, after all most of their time is spent being Blue or a huge ORC in the Oasis where they spend their time as an Avatar. Geek culture is not some exclusively male, or exclusively white culture group so I just don't understand why race was even brought into it. The author was white and the movie is set in a predominantly white country so I see no problem with the racial spread present in either the films or the novels. Although before reading this thread I never looked at the film through the prism of race - that really doesn't matter to me. Anyway I don't want to discuss that anymore and risk breaking the forum rules. There was a point, I made a counter point and I'm happy to leave it there.

Wade is a bit meh in the film, that's definitely something I agree with, a lot of his agency has been moved over to Art3mis in the film, so it is Art3mis that hatches most of the plans and puts them into motion which is not the case in the books. There's also a whole weird sex simulation and shaved body part which (thankfully) never made it into the films. 

I-Rok was much improved in the film though, I liked his expanded role. I didn't like the real world assassin lady - seemed a bit OTT. 

You get a lot more of Wades personal story in the books and I think they enamor you to him a lot more. I also prefer the challenges in the book.

Having thought about it - I'm not so sure Wade is definitely the better gamer/gunter in the book, as although he beats Joust faster than Art3mis she consistently jumps him on the scoreboard. 

I also really liked that they gave Art3mis a birthmark and made her character a lot more interesting that way. 

As I said overall I really liked the film but I preferred the book.


----------



## Dave (Nov 27, 2018)

SilentRoamer said:


> I didn't like the real world assassin lady - seemed a bit OTT.


Having watched her in the lead role in the TV series _Killjoys _I found it impossible to see her as the baddie in this, but that was just my problem.

I thought all the characters in the team were a little stereotyped really, especially the Asian child prodigy, which is why if @kythe is correct and the book had much a more detailed character development, then this wasn't a good adaptation.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 27, 2018)

@SilentRoamer I wasn't aware we were at odds with our discussing the male protag, or in any way near forum rule transgression. If you're happy, I'm happy.

If you mean supporting the maleness (or as I said, the whiteness) might be a transgression of rules, I'd disagree. We're talking ethnology of gamer/geek culture here. There is a heavy bias to white males in that regard which - thank goodness - is changing. And there are countless times I've seen (and supported) threads about the marginalisation of women in SFF (although not, strangely,  horror). It goes both ways and so far -as is the norm for chrons - it's been discussed maturely and sensitively.

I don't have your in-depth knowledge of the book from which this film is based, but I can well imagine your points on it. We so often see more depth in the novels than the films.



Dave said:


> Having watched her in the lead role in the TV series _Killjoys _I found it impossible to see her as the baddie in this, but that was just my problem.



Deev! So glad you posted this. I spent the entire duration of her screentime trying to remember where I'd seen her. I kept getting her confused with the engineer in _The Expanse_, and gave up.

My sis, a huge gamer/geek fan is staying with me this weekend so I'll show her the film and see what her take on it is. I suspect it'll be the same as ours; she's also probably read the book.

pH


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 27, 2018)

Phyrebrat said:


> @SilentRoamer.
> In fact Aitch had more depth of character than the main. (I don’t recall his name).



Her name.  Helen with an Aitch.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 27, 2018)

psikeyhackr said:


> Her name.  Helen with an Aitch.



No, the main character. The Male.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 27, 2018)

Phyrebrat said:


> No, the main character. The Male.



Sorry, Wade Owen Watts alias Percival(sp).


----------



## Dave (Nov 27, 2018)

Phyrebrat said:


> Preferred the female lead to the really vanilla Male lead.





SilentRoamer said:


> When you say really vanilla are you talking about naivety?





Phyrebrat said:


> My thing about his vanilla-ness wasn’t just his naivety but also he was just a bit meh.





SilentRoamer said:


> Wade is a bit meh in the film, that's definitely something I agree with, a lot of his agency has been moved over to Art3mis in the film, so it is Art3mis that hatches most of the plans and puts them into motion which is not the case in the books.



What about the naivety of mentioning his real name and that he had bought the top of the range suit, which then allowed 101 to track him down, and ultimately meant he was responsible for the death of his aunt, step-uncle and the majority of his friends and neighbours (something he seemed to get over rather quickly)? 

In the book did he also do that?

It doesn't strike me as something that a "better gamer/gunter" would do. In the film they also made a reference to him being so inexperienced and unsophisticated that during the first task he had not joined a Clan yet. So, they were certainly trying to paint a picture of him being simple and naive but intelligent and tenacious. That made him unlike the other gamers/gunters but quite like Halliwell himself. At least, that was my take on it.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 27, 2018)

Phyrebrat said:


> @SilentRoamer I wasn't aware we were at odds with our discussing the male protag, or in any way near forum rule transgression. If you're happy, I'm happy.
> 
> If you mean supporting the maleness (or as I said, the whiteness) might be a transgression of rules, I'd disagree. We're talking ethnology of gamer/geek culture here. There is a heavy bias to white males in that regard which - thank goodness - is changing. And there are countless times I've seen (and supported) threads about the marginalisation of women in SFF (although not, strangely,  horror). It goes both ways and so far -as is the norm for chrons - it's been discussed maturely and sensitively.



Hey no worries, I've seen threads blow up fast and don't want to go there. I think I misread your initial posts tone, hard to parse tone and intent on the net. 

I disagree with your assertion there is a heavy white male bias in gamer/geek culture.  I guess I just don't believe that a particular group being more represented in a particular activity is indicative of a heavy bias. There are also lot of other non white influences, I mean for a start Japan has a huge influence on gamer/geek culture overall both in terms of hardware deployed into the marketplace and also the cultural influences on the games. JRPGs and cosplay are inherently Japanese and part of wider gamer/geek culture. 



Dave said:


> What about the naivety of mentioning his real name and that he had bought the top of the range suit, which then allowed 101 to track him down, and ultimately meant he was responsible for the death of his aunt, step-uncle and the majority of his friends and neighbours (something he seemed to get over rather quickly)?
> 
> In the book did he also do that?
> 
> It doesn't strike me as something that a "better gamer/gunter" would do. In the film they also made a reference to him being so inexperienced and unsophisticated that during the first task he had not joined a Clan yet. So, they were certainly trying to paint a picture of him being simple and naive but intelligent and tenacious. That made him unlike the other gamers/gunters but quite like Halliwell himself. At least, that was my take on it.



In the book Parzival starts on planet called Ludus which is basically the school and starter planet. OASIS items require real world cash or OASIS cash of which Wade has neither. He couldn't even teleport off of the planet. He spent almost all of his time studying Anoraks Almanac which was a list of 100s of games, films, books, tv serials, music and all things pop culture. Those particular pop culture references were what made a gunter and Wade was really knowledgeable in the books as he spent most of his life studying pop culture. Including being very, very good at the games there were considered canon. 

In the book the starter challenge is just a video of Halliday giving a clue - so everyone who watches it has an equal chance of figuring it out. There are basically gates as in the films but also the clues that lead to the gates. 

In the books Wade would never join a clan just to increase his chances - it didn't really go into this in the film but a lot of gunters thought that Clans were basically selling out. High Five (the name for Parzival, Aech, Art3mis, Shaito and Daito) only forms after they are placed in real world duress and danger. 

In the books as in the film your online Avatar and real world persona are not supposed to be linked in any way and in the books IOI hadn't been particularly crazy until they blew up his caravan in the stacks. He had no real way to know they knew who he was and after that he took a lot of pains to avoid them (including creating a new identity which he used to get inside IOI) because Wade was a hacker. 

Basically in terms of skill The High Five were the best individual gamers, with Wade being the best, at least in the books. In terms of gaming - this also refers to games within games - so theyre in the OASIS but they're playing 80s games. 

There's one point in the book where Wade freaks out how deep he has gone - he is in OASIS in a world, playing a game and then in that game starts another game - it's a great little moment. 

Wow long post.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 28, 2019)

Am currently reading the book and plan to watch the film very soon - but before I do, can I ask - does the film go through the film sets of _Wargames _and _Bladerunner _like in the book? Just that if so, I'll watch those with the kids before we watch _Ready Player One_, just so that they get the references.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jan 28, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Am currently reading the book and plan to watch the film very soon - but before I do, can I ask - does the film go through the film sets of _Wargames _and _Bladerunner _like in the book? Just that if so, I'll watch those with the kids before we watch _Ready Player One_, just so that they get the references.



Nope. They go through the set of THE SHINING. Not sure if you want to scare the bejeesus out of your kids watching that to prep them for READY PLAYER NOW


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 28, 2019)

Aw, boo. 

Still, I'm going to add _2001 _and _Bladerunner _to the family viewing this year, anyway.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 28, 2019)

Yeah, the changes from the book to the movie were both interesting and disappointing.  Cramming a long book into less than 3 hours must be a challenge.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 29, 2019)

The Bluestocking said:


> They go through the set of THE SHINING.



That is so odd - it's not even mentioned in the book!



Dave said:


> What about the naivety of mentioning his real name and that he had bought the top of the range suit, which then allowed 101 to track him down, and ultimately meant he was responsible for the death of his aunt, step-uncle and the majority of his friends and neighbours (something he seemed to get over rather quickly)?



In the book, he never gave his name - IOI bribed their way through the school system, and found his location that way. 

Btw, I think there was a misunderstanding before about the term "vanilla", which IMO was simply used to mean "plain and uninteresting" rather than anything else.

Anyway, very much enjoyed the book, and am looking forward to watching the film - even though it seems to be very different.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 29, 2019)

If you enjoyed the book Brian I suggest you skip the film. It's a major let down.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 29, 2019)

Vince W said:


> If you enjoyed the book Brian I suggest you skip the film. It's a major let down.



All you have to do is watch the trailer to see it must be significantly different.  Since I was expecting it to be different I was not too bent out of shape but still not as good as the book.

*Daemon* and *Freedom* by Danial Suarez are better than RP1 though more serious.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 29, 2019)

Vince W said:


> If you enjoyed the book Brian I suggest you skip the film. It's a major let down.





psikeyhackr said:


> Since I was expecting it to be different I was not too bent out of shape but still not as good as the book.



Yeah, I'm taking the second approach - pre-warned, to limit my expectations.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 29, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Yeah, I'm taking the second approach - pre-warned, to limit my expectations.


Do the same with Armada, if you choose to read it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 29, 2019)

Vince W said:


> Do the same with Armada, if you choose to read it.



I suspect I'll give that a miss - I don't hear many people recommending it, and I desperately need to get through my existing but ever increasing TBR pile.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 30, 2019)

Vince W said:


> Do the same with Armada, if you choose to read it.



Here we diverge.  I actually put off reading *Ready Player One* because of what I expected.  When I finally read It I was somewhat shocked at liking it.  So naturally I started *Armada*.  Armada was what I had expected RP1 to be and I quit 1/3rd of the way in.  No intention of going back.  So, evaluate your own tastes and take your chances.  LOL


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 3, 2019)

Finally watched it and enjoyed it. 

I can understand why Spielberg made changes to the story make it more visually appealing, and I think for the most part it worked. I've no idea why he swapped the _Bladerunner _set for _The Shining_, though - possibly a rights issue, though I noticed a couple of added touches of horror in general.

Anyway, a decent film, but as ever, the book is better.


----------



## Judderman (Apr 7, 2019)

I watched this on a plane. 'Twas quite entertaining, probably better than expected. The races in the games were great. Reminded me of playing Wipeout games. The game playing characters were reasonably interesting. The first half kept me watching. But similar to most CGI films it descended into some not particularly interesting battle action and bad guy takedown towards the end.
As others have said it didn't show much of people playing games constantly possibly being super unhealthy etc. Perhaps you could say they did activity from using the VR suits. The hero is even shown to be quite athletic on his way to his gaming den.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 8, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> I've no idea why he swapped the _Bladerunner _set for _The Shining_, though - possibly a rights issue



The rights for Bladerunner were denied due to Bladerunner 2049 coming out.


----------

