Pages

Friday, March 30, 2018

Ready Player One: analysis and perspective


I attended a screening of the new movie Ready Player One on Wednesday, thanks to FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention (weird to have to type that, BTW). The movie is an adaptation of Ernest Cline's ultra-nerdy book of the same title, referred to by some as "the holy grail of pop culture." Having read the book and, now, seen the movie, I have a few thoughts and figured it would be a good excuse to dust off the ol' keyboard and whip together a blog.

Ready Player One is set in a dystopian, technology-obsessed United States, in the year 2045, where there is little left for the youth of America to do but go to online school and play with their virtual reality simulators. The main character, Wade Watts, is a teenage kid without much good going on in his life. He, as all of his peers, spends nearly all of his time enveloped in a virtual world called the "OASIS." The program was developed by a video game pioneer named James Halliday. To make a long story short (too late), Halliday is dead. When he died, Halliday released a recording with his will that announced to all OASIS users that he had left an "Easter egg" inside the programming. The first player to solve his riddles and find the egg would inherit his fortune and company, not to mention gaining control over the entire OASIS.

Thus, Wade and countless numbers of VR gamers would embark on a quest to find the egg. This venture begins to consume every waking moment of Wade's life. Wade gains notoriety in the OASIS by becoming the first person to solve one of Halliday's riddles. Despite becoming a hero to many, Wade quickly becomes Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of a nefarious corporation called IOI, whose singular aim is to obtain control over the OASIS by any means necessary.   While Wade gets closer to the deciphering Halliday's technological teasers, the stakes are raised and the danger hits closer to home, as Wade's online success may lead to catastrophic real-world consequences.

Cline's novel was originally released in 2011. I read it in 2014 or '15, around the time that the book got its first wave of  maintstream popularity. I was working for Comic Con at the time, so, naturally, some of the people that recommended it to me were hardcore nerds (and I say that in the nicest way possible). I liked the book. I wouldn't say it was my favorite book or the best thing I've ever read, but I appreciated all the pop culture references and thought that aspect was fun. In the story, Halliday was obsessed with '80s pop culture, so many parts of the OASIS were based on movies, TV shows and video games that I grew up enjoying. I like the concept of this virtual world where you can go anywhere and do anything. (I wish there was something like that in real life. I'd play it, for sure.) The concept is just so cool, introducing a world that literally knows no bounds but those of our imagination.

I was a bit hesitant to get excited about this movie. Because I am still so largely involved with Comic Con culture, this movie brought with it a ton of hype, so I wanted to keep my expectations tempered. I'm glad I did. I went in excited, but cautious, and ended up pleasantly surprised with how Steven Spielberg brought the story to life. The movie captured a lot of the excitement I experienced when reading the book and reminded me why so many people have become fans of the story in the first place.

It's a totally awesome concept, overall, but one thing that I had a hard time with while reading the book was the sheer enormity of the universe. There were so many pop culture references - and so many that were based on such old-school arcade games or movies - that I felt like some of it went over my head because I just wasn't familiar with a good chunk of what was being described to me (the video game "Joust" is a focal point in the book; I'd never previously heard of such a thing). It was still a fun read, but some parts were just a little too nerdy for me.

The movie is a bit the same way during some stretches, featuring a 15-minute scene that is based on a movie that I have never seen. However, I feel like the movie did focus more on movies and modern video games, which was a nice change, and made things more enjoyable for me. There are a lot of aspects of the book that just wouldn't translate well to the big screen (like one of the tests in the book, where Wade has to re-enact a scene from a Matthew Broderick movie, word-for-word). I felt like the film did a good job of telling a story that was similar to the book, but different enough to keep audiences engaged.

Speaking of changes, the movie actually makes some major departures from the book. The car race showcased in the trailer and commercials and the Back to the Future DeLorean aren't in the book, the second major challenge in the movie is new, and several character arcs are altered significantly. So, if you're hoping or expecting the movie to be a direct translation of the book, think again. I'm ok with it, though. In fact, I think this is one instance where the movie is better than the book it's based on.

An important thing to keep in mind is that this is a story that is very dependent on a particular demographic. The story was literally born in the 1980s and, as such, was written for readers of that era. If you were born in the year 2005, you have no business reading the book. Don't pick it up. Just don't. You won't get it. Similarly, the movie is targeting the same audience. There are wall-to-wall '80s references, from Atari to the Battletoads to (my personal favorite) the Goldie Wilson mayoral poster from Back to the Future that can be seen in the background of one scene. That's straight-up nostalgia and it's a fun trip down memory lane for people who grew up in the '80s and early '90s. With that in mind, I don't think this is a movie for children. They might be able to go and have a good time, but they won't get it. I am also not sure how much my parents would enjoy it. They love movies (and raised me right by introducing me to movies like Indiana Jones), but because the story is so centralized around video games (which my parents aren't interested in), I think that the virtual reality aspect of the story would not be appealing to them.

It may be of note that there is also quite a bit of typical teenage profanity (including one use of the F-word, used rather successfully for laughs) and a smattering of mild sexual innuendo, so keep that in mind when considering taking your kids or parents along to the theater.

If you are a product of the '80s, this is a movie you owe yourself to see. This is arguably the greatest mash-up of pop culture ever to hit the big screen and it really is a blast. I plan on seeing it again at least once (thanks, MoviePass!) and it's definitely a movie I'll be adding to my vast Blu-ray library when it comes out. I'd give it 4 stars out of 5 and a hearty recommendation for those old enough to appreciate it.


Have you seen and/or read Ready Player One? If so, what did you think? Did you like the movie or book better? What was your favorite Easter egg? Join the conversation and let us know in the comments below.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

3 rule changes that could fix terrible NBA officiating


I'm not going to pretend like I am Mr. NBA Know-It-All. I openly admit that I extremely rarely watch any other NBA games, other than my hometown Utah Jazz, because my life is too busy and the league just isn't that likable, as a whole. But I've got a big basketball bone to pick.

NBA officials suck. Terribly.

This has been an issue for as long as I can remember, but here's my question - if everybody knows it's a problem, why hasn't it been fixed? I believe that basketball has the worst officiating of any of the major sports - or at least the highest-profile problems. Traveling is a joke, blown calls run amok and the NBA's infamous Last Two Minute Report is a sorry excuse for admission of guilt. Of course, the NFL has had some issues with the "Catch Rule," the "Tuck Rule" and Major League Baseball has a couple occasional blips on the radar, but NBA referees seem to be most consistently under fire for their screw-ups.

Two instances in recent Utah Jazz games have particularly bothered me. I tweeted about an incident in the Jazz/Hawks game the other night and the tweet got a lot of attention. To my disbelief, basically anyone that responded or retweeted the video agreed with me: this was an atrocity, an absolute joke of a call. Behold.

Example One: Atlanta Haws vs Utah Jazz, 03/21/18



What actually happened: As you can see, Joe Ingles is guarding Taurean Prince as the ball is about to be inbounded. As the Hawks start their play, Prince attempts to cut away from Ingles, placing his hand on Ingles' shoulder. Inexplicably, he hits his head on his own hand, flops egregiously and draws the foul call.

What the refs called: The call was an away-from-the-ball foul on Ingles while the ball was out of bounds, which awarded the Hawks one free throw plus possession of the ball.

Why this is ridiculous: Although there is a minimal amount of contact by Ingles, who has one hand lightly touching Prince, the "contact" is initiated by Prince, who hits himself in his own face! What makes this call even worse is that the NBA reviewed this play in slow motion and confirmed that they got the call right! How on earth can you review this (multiple times, I assume) and still say that this is a foul against Ingles? That's just a straight-up flaw in the system. I do like the review system most of the time, but this makes the process look like a total sham.

Fun fact: This tweet was retweeted by the producer of the popular blooper segment "Shaqtin' a Fool."

Example Two: Utah Jazz vs San Antonio Spurs, 03/23/18



What actually happened: The Jazz were mounting a comeback against the Spurs, late in the fourth quarter. Donovan Mitchell was knocking down threes and Rudy Gobert, as seen here, slammed home two points that tied up the game with only minutes to play. He is hit across the arm by LaMarcus Aldridge (who, admittedly, had himself a heck of a game), which should have sent Gobert to the free throw line to potentially put the Jazz up by one.

What the refs called: Nothing.

Why this is ridiculous: The game ended up going into overtime and the Jazz lost the game. One missed call led to one less possible point, which could have completely influenced the outcome of the game.

---

Now. I understand that the refs have a very difficult job. I wouldn't want to do it. I understand that they are not going to get every single call right every single time and that, if every single violation were called, the sport would become completely unwatchable.

However. The Jazz lost both of these games. The Jazz are currently fighting for their playoff lives, despite playing, historically, some of the best basketball in the history of the franchise. Despite going 22-4 in their last 26 games, the Jazz are battling for positioning in the Western Conference and every game counts - especially when two of these losses are coming to the Hawks, who the Jazz should have beaten, and the Spurs, who are now two games ahead of the Jazz in the standings after last night's game. Every win and loss matters right now, and the Jazz cannot afford to be losing due (in part) to poor officiating during crucial moments.

So what can be done?

I understand that neither of these two suggestions will happen, but I'm going to make them anyway.

1. Add a fourth official. As Jazz writer Andy Larsen pointed out on Twitter last night, "This is ... a perfect example of why we need four referees. [One ref is] shielded by Gobert's body and can't tell if the swipe makes contact."

A fourth referee could have provided just that - more visibility on the court. This would vastly help with the ability to have more eyes on the action to ensure that the correct calls are made in real time.

Ideally, a fourth referee should not be necessary because the NBA already has the option to review key plays, but obviously, as discussed in the aforementioned Example One, the review system is subjective and does not always work.

2. Give refs the ability to completely overturn a bad call. In Example One, the refs should have determined that they got the call completely wrong. The should have looked at the tape and said, "You know what? That's a flop. That's not a foul." (Again, the fact that they did review it and still agreed that they got the call right BLOWS MY MIND. What utter nonsense.)

Officials generally do a good job of determining who touched the ball last when under review and they can go back and upgrade or downgrade the severity of a foul, so why does the league keep things the way they are with these missed or non-calls, where they seemingly can't overturn some of these mistakes? I assume that they want to come off looking like they know what they're doing in a kind of We-Were-Right-All-Along sort of way, but if you blow it, I think you ultimately come off looking better confessing your mistake immediately rather than stubbornly maintaining the bad call and admitting wrongdoing a day or two later.

3. Give coaches the opportunity to challenge blown calls. In instances where the refs stick to their guns and do not (or cannot) overturn a poor decision, why not give coaches the opportunity to challenge calls like they can in other sports like the NFL or MLB?

The concept would be the same and the consequences should be similar: each team gets one "challenge" per game. Take, for instance, Example Two. The refs miss a no-call on Aldridge, but Quin Snyder asks to challenge the play.  The refs take a look at the tape and determine that there was a missed call, which thereby sends Gobert to the free throw line. If there truly was no contact, the Jazz would be penalized and lose a time-out. If a team has no time-outs remaining, they would not be able to challenge any plays.

---

Who stands to benefit from these proposed changes? Most teams, I'd argue. The only people who would be vehemently opposed to my ideas would probably be Warriors, Cavaliers or Chris Paul fans - basically anyone who is used to their team getting the benefit of corrupt officiating. Small-market teams like my Utah Jazz, on the other hand, very rarely (if ever) benefit from bad calls or non-calls, so I think these proposals would add a great degree of parity and fairness to the sport that does not currently exist. I just want to see the best, most accurate and correct competition possible, and the way things are right now, I've seen too many instances of bad officiating to feel comfortable the job these refs are doing.

The Bottom Line

I don't want the league to become over-officiated. I just want it to be officiated correctly.

If LeBron James takes too many steps, I want them to call traveling. If James Harden flops, I don't want him going to the free throw line. If LaMarcus Aldridge smacks Rudy Gobert's arm, I want Rudy at the line with a chance to win the game. And if Michael Jordan pushes off, by gosh, I want my NBA championship banner.

Is that too much to ask?