Slashdot Mirror


Interview with Tron Creator Steven Lisberger

NeoCode writes "AintItCool has posted an interesting interview with the Tron creator Steven Lisberger. He doesn't talk much about the sequel Tron 2.0 (because of a Disney gag order) but he reflects about the original movie with nostalgia. He talks about what influenced Tron and what Tron meant (and still does) to people. Have a read."

205 comments

  1. Misnamed sequel... by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Funny

    They really should call the sequel TROFF... or perhaps I need to get back on the medications.

    1. Re:Misnamed sequel... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      And then the FSF could come out with a Free Version named GROFF. Oh wait...

    2. Re:Misnamed sequel... by bpfinn · · Score: 1

      Just as long as they don't call it POKE. Yikes!

  2. Not to be confused... by loteck · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    with the pornography industry's popular knock-off:

    Pr0n

  3. Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

    From Tron to Babylon 5 to this.

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    1. Re:Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by mstorer3772 · · Score: 1

      You left out "Scarecrow and Mrs. King".

      And no one will hold it against you. Did anyone actually LIKE that show?

      --
      Fooz Meister
    2. Re:Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by rczyzewski · · Score: 0

      And don't forget his Outer Limits appearance. I cut into the middle of that episode and what like, "what the hell is going on?" Didn't realize until today that was Bruce in Tron. I'll have to go rent it to see what he looks like back them. I'd like to see them set the film in a Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows setting. The Great OS War or something like that. Tron would of course fight for the winning OS.

    3. Re:Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by schon · · Score: 1

      You left out "Scarecrow and Mrs. King"

      And the oft-forgotten "Bring 'em Back Alive" (which also starred his Tron co-star Cindy Morgan)

      Oh, what about Kuffs? (The movie with Christian Slater.)

      I think that's all I've seen him in.

    4. Re:Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like he as at least 72 films or tv shows to his credit.
      Sheesh, go to the source!

    5. Re:Ah, Bruce Boxleitner by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      He was in that for like five minutes before he got shot.

      Besides, I wasn't trying give a complete filmography, just make some sort of fairly amusing almost-trend.)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  4. Damn by sllort · · Score: 0, Funny

    I wish that they'd asked the guy who wrote the movie about fighting evil corporate intrusion countermeasures how he feels about his movie being distributed with evil corporate intrusion countermeasures.

  5. Tron 2? by Lxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we need a sequel?

    Tron was awesome because it wowed the audience with its technical advances. In these days with the Matrix and Star Wars and the like, technology isn't as thrilling. Sure, we like to see Pixar's next film, as they continually create more stunning characters and produce each sequential film is less time. That's cool. But it's not the drop-everything-OH-MY-GOD-let's-go-see-this film that Tron was.

    Of course I'll go see it. I think that's a requirement of being a registered linux user, right? my point is that there are some films that had their day, still have their day, and should just be left alone. Tron is one of them.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. Re:Tron 2? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I see yor point, but I also see a lot of potential to deal with the change in computers for a good story. Hopefully it will be a good story, with stunning effects, and not just special effects.

      too me, there is always room for one more good movie.

      OTOH I always condsidered the Matrix to be TRON for this generation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Tron 2? by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Except Tron was good :)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    3. Re:Tron 2? by idontneedanickname · · Score: 1

      Well, gee, maybe they don't want to make a big-flashy movie just to show off their budget, but maybe they like the setting of the story and think that they could make an interesting sequel. I'm not trying to flame you, just saying it's not all about the FX...

    4. Re:Tron 2? by Skirwan · · Score: 3, Funny
      Why do we need a sequel?
      Scene: Marketer's bedroom, night.

      Marketer, formerly fast asleep, sits bolt upright with a look of sheer amazement on his face. The sleepiness drops from his face as he slowly turns his head upwards, as if thanking God himself for the incredible inspiration.

      Marketer: Tron... Two Point Oh! It's like 'Tron Two', but like a computer! Dear God, am I a genius! This movie must be made!

      --
      Damn the Emperor!
    5. Re:Tron 2? by lugonn · · Score: 1
      Dude, Tron wasn't good...the story execution sucked. It was eye candy.

      It didn't make any sense until the 15th time you watched it. And it was full of unexplained plot fillers. Kinda like that other great cult-sci-fi film of the 80's...Buckaroo Banzai! Only there was supposed to be a sequel to Buckaroo Banzai that would explain some of the goings on in the first movie, but it never got made and I still have questions damnit! So I'm looking forward to Tron 2, it needs to be made. I mean shit, what ever happened to Tron and Yori anyway? Did they have bits? Did Tron become THMFIC of the mainframe with the MCP gone? Did he figure out a way to make it into the real world? Did Flynn turn his Arcade into a Starbucks after he got the CEO job at Digicom?

      The Matrix on the other hand was well explained/executed and the only question I had leaving was what the Oracle was.

    6. Re:Tron 2? by schon · · Score: 1

      Marketer: Tron... Two Point Oh! It's like 'Tron Two', but like a computer! Dear God, am I a genius!

      You think you're funny, but watch the credits when it comes out.. I'm sure you'll see something like the following:

      Based on an idea by the Marketing Department of Disney Pictures, Inc.

    7. Re:Tron 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lawd! Give me one good reason I shouldn't kill you all!

    8. Re:Tron 2? by geoswan · · Score: 2
      Why do we need a sequel?

      I read this somewhere. A wiseguy said, "I saw Antonioni's 'The Passenger', and I plan to see Passenger 57, with Wesley Snipes. But I missed Passenger 2 through 56. Were they any good? Did I miss very much?

    9. Re:Tron 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought Reboot was the Tron for today.

  6. Remind me. What was the Bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Remind me. What was the Bit? "
    The author sure did his research didn't he?
    Did he even watch the movie?
    Sure, the bit was a minor element in the movie, but come on.

    1. Re:Remind me. What was the Bit? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
      Was it worse than the person being interviewed?

      There was very much a sense that IBM was Big Brother, but we didn't know it at the time....We didn't know that Bill Gates was writing the ultimate code to implant into the IBM system, which was then going to give birth to the PC, or at least make the PC accessible.

      I think at that time we all knew IBM was "Big Brother". They even told us our character set was wrong! And didn't Bill buy the ultimate code? Didn't Woz and Jobs make this stuff accessible?

      Or did I sleep though this?

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    2. Re:Remind me. What was the Bit? by ez76 · · Score: 1
      The author sure did his research didn't he?
      No
      Did he even watch the movie?
      Yes
      Sure, the bit was a minor element in the movie, but come on.
      Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ...
    3. Re:Remind me. What was the Bit? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      "yesyesyesyesyesyesyes" and "nonononononono" ...

      Reminded me of when I ran Windows.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  7. horrible interviewer. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First he states the tron is the best, then later asks: "Remind me. What was the Bit? "
    not really much of a tron fan.

    then its?: I know you can't talk about tron 2, so here is a bunch of questions about tron 2...

    blech.
    Can /. do a 10 questions?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:horrible interviewer. by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      honestly, did you expect a top notch esposé? This is coming from a site called "aint it cool" no less....

      :\

    2. Re:horrible interviewer. by The+Diver · · Score: 1

      And of course it's PARC not PARK....as in XEROX PARC.

    3. Re:horrible interviewer. by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      PARC, as in Palo Alto Research Center

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    4. Re:horrible interviewer. by cetan · · Score: 1

      speaking of which, whomever designed that site should be taken out back and shot.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    5. Re:horrible interviewer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insiders call it Park because, well, it's a park.

    6. Re:horrible interviewer. by applejacks · · Score: 0

      The questions could have been better thought out. He should ask questions pertaining to Cindy Morgan and the rest of the original cast.

      Did they socialize?
      Who caused the most problems on set?
      Views on digitization?
      Was startrek a factor?
      There are so many question I could come up with. As I am sure Tron 2.0 will be exciting to watch, I don't necessarily expect too much out of it. Quality isn't something I'm seeing from the film or any other industry at present. Economy goes down, so does everything else. SALE SALE SALE..

  8. Obligatory Quote by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Eisner: What kind of consumer is he?

    Ghost of Disney: He's not any kind of consumer, Eisner. He's a geek.

    Eisner: A geek?!

    GoD: What's the matter, Eisner? You look nervous.

    Eisner: Geeks... well, I mean... geeks wrote us. A geek even wrote you!

    GoD: No one geek wrote me! I'm worth millions of their geek-years!

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  9. Tron? by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought Bill Gates created tron and troff ... OH... sorry, I'm thinking of GWBASIC again.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re:Tron? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      How about the creator of the MCP? (I mean the Msft Certified Professional).

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    2. Re:Tron? by applejacks · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the MCP be like the scheduler in most operating systems?

  10. Tron 2.0 ?? by TheKubrix · · Score: 4, Informative

    I could be wrong but I believe it's called Tron Killer App

    1. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quote from your link:
      Also Known As:
      Tron 2.0 (2001) (USA: working title)
      So remove those question marks from your subject line.
    2. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hence the I could be wrong intro, now stop trolling!

    3. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot. The question marks indicated a sense of questioning the word, in that it is rong.
      I'm not trolling,

    4. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no me no wong, yoo wong, yoo no wight, now top tolling!

    5. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope the graphics aren't going to be anything like the Lawnmower Man. It was cool, but damn...there is a thing called TOO much eyecandy.

    6. Re:Tron 2.0 ?? by ashitaka · · Score: 2

      ...there is a thing called TOO much eyecandy.


      You are perfectly describing Mr. Lucas' recent films.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  11. Did you ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you ever feed pigs in TROFF?

    Do weathermen scare you when they say low pressure TROFF?

    Do hot babes TRON?

  12. What a great flick by bytor4232 · · Score: 1
    Sure it may seem cheesey to todays standards, but it was a great story. I think nobody can truly call themselves a geek unless they own the Tron DVD.

    BTW, that DVD is great. The directors commentary is just flat spectacular.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
    1. Re:What a great flick by Pope · · Score: 1

      DVD? Feh. I own the CAV Laserdisc box set.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:What a great flick by Raiford · · Score: 1

      ... and you still have the equipment to watch it ?

      --
      "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
    3. Re:What a great flick by soupforare · · Score: 1

      DUDE! You suck! :P
      Is that the special re-release with the deleted scenes and that Journey song?

      LD Forever!

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    4. Re:What a great flick by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2
      The directors commentary is just flat spectacular.

      Did you notice that they talk about the technical travails in making it, they mention little incidents that happened along the way, and so forth - but they don't comment on the story itself, the plot, or anything like that?

      Even they recognize that the movie was all about the technology used in making it, and the story was entirely secondary.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    5. Re:What a great flick by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      LD forever indeed, just don't expect the players to last forever...

      anyway, no matter how wonderful it WAS, it's still composite video (the horror!). MPEG2 may be compressed, but at least it's component.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:What a great flick by soupforare · · Score: 1

      Quite, but with horrendously expensive players like the Pioneer LD-S9 and HLD-X9, does one really mind?
      I know I wouldn't.... hmmm, delicious 3D Comb Filters of Power [+4!]

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
  13. What's up with the gag order? by jonman_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's with this Disney gag order? I mean, come on! I, for one, would be more inclined to spend the $10 to see the movie if I had been able to read more about it from this interview.

    Why must they do that?

    1. Re:What's up with the gag order? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      They do it for two reasons:

      1. You can't have an "out-of-the-blue" hit movie if people know it's coming.

      2. Disney lives in a fantasy world (really - this is not me making fun of them) where the abiliy to control the flow of information is more important than the information itself. The image, the presentation is everything to them.

      If they didn't have gag orders, they would just have to lock people on the studio lots until filming was done - and fewer actors would work with them.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:What's up with the gag order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, usually gag orders precede sucky movies
      *prays*

    3. Re:What's up with the gag order? by Schnapple · · Score: 4, Informative
      What's with this Disney gag order?
      A few things, really. First, TRON 2.0 is really early into production, so no use in putting information out there that's potentially wrong. Second, lack of information at early stages makes for more tension and hype. But really part of it has to be based off of the idea that Disney may well pull the plug on the whole thing. A TRON sequel has been in the talking/development hell stages for years and years now.

      Monolith wanted their upcoming TRON 2.0 game to be based off of the sequel, but after waiting so long they gave up and persued (and won) the right to do up TRON 2.0 as a game, regardless of if the movie is made. Oddly enough, it looks like all the hype the game has created has made Disney more anxious to work on the movie, which is why we're hearing more and more about it.

    4. Re:What's up with the gag order? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1

      What's with this Disney gag order? I mean, come on!

      Yeah, I mean it's so unlike Disney to disregard what's best for the geek community just to serve their own interests. No precedent for this kind of action whatsoever.

      GMD

    5. Re:What's up with the gag order? by shadow303 · · Score: 1

      I wish Disney would hit McDonald's with a gag order. Everytime they release a new cartoon movie, I am sick of hearing about it before it even hits the theaters.

      --
      I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
    6. Re:What's up with the gag order? by surfimp · · Score: 1

      Why do they do that?

      Because Disney knows you're going to spend the $10 to see the movie either way.

      You are a geek. You must comply. ;)

  14. Hmm have a techie interview him next time... by jsonmez · · Score: 1

    Remind me. What was the Bit? It was just a bit--the increment that we could get out of computers at the time. The computer's equivalent to an atom? Exactly. A zero and a one. A positive or a negative.

    1. Re:Hmm have a techie interview him next time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remind me. What was the Bit? It was just a bit--the increment that we could get out of computers at the time. The computer's equivalent to an atom? Exactly. A zero and a one. A positive or a negative.


      Except the bit had a neutral state as well, not to mention memory.

  15. Obligatory Family Guy Quote by jgkastra · · Score: 1

    *break to Tron scene*

    Peter: Eric?

    Eric: Peter!

    Peter: Oh my God! I haven't seen you since high school! God, what are you doing these days?

    Eric: I'm the red guy!

    Peter: Oh my God!

    Eric: What are you doing?

    Peter: I'm the green guy!

    Eric: No kidding! Is that Stacy Beecham?

    Peter: Where?

    *cuts off and destroys Peter*

  16. Tron 2? by tonywestonuk · · Score: 1
    I don't think it's going to do well at the box office... The memory protection inherent in todays OS's all the UP (user programs) wont be able to slug it out with each other as in the first incarnation. (would they each be surounded by a virtual glass cage I guess?!).

    I wonder if the MCP will be an M$MCP? - Probably not, you'd only have to wait a while, and it'd crash all on its own...no fun there....

    T.

  17. jesus christ! by lingqi · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...I kept playing through post-production for six months and my final score [for BattleZone] was somewhere around five million...

    by the monitor's "radiation king" standards back then -- that's 5 inches of hairline you won't be getting back. we will just leave alone the effects on the cornea and skin cancer and the coughwastedtimecough...

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  18. obligatory simpsons reference by po_boy · · Score: 2

    Homer: Uh...it's like...did anyone see the movie "Tron"?
    Hibbert: No.
    Lisa: No.
    Marge: No.
    Wiggum: No.
    Bart: No.
    Patty: No.
    Wiggum: No.
    Ned: No.
    Selma: No.
    Frink: No.
    Lovejoy: No.
    Wiggum: Yes. I mean -- um, I mean, no. No, heh.
    -- "Treehouse of Horror VI"

    1. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by daeley · · Score: 2

      Lisa: Well, where's my dad?

      Frink: Well, it should be obvious to even the most dimwitted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, n'gee, that Homer Simpson has stumbled into...[the lights go off] the third dimension.

      Lisa: [flips the light switch back] Sorry.

      Frink: [drawing on a blackboard] Here is an ordinary square....

      Wiggum: Whoa, whoa - slow down, egghead!

      Frink: ... but suppose we extend the square beyond the two dimensions of our universe, along the hypothetical z-axis, there.

      Everyone: [gasps]

      Frink: This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube," or a "Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, n'hey, n'hey.

      Homer's voice: Help me! Are you helping me, or are you going on and on?

      Frink: Oh, right. And, of course, within, we find the doomed individual.''

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Why did Wiggum answer Homer's question twice?

    3. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he didnt, he answered it 3 times, dillweed.

    4. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't geeks count above 2? It must be a binary thing.

    5. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by po_boy · · Score: 1

      Are you sure he answered it twice?

    6. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three times... count again. And it's called "a joke" :P

    7. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by schon · · Score: 1

      Why can't geeks count above 2?

      Actually, they can.

      The previous poster must be a Gully Dwarf.

      Something I learned from my DM: If a Gully Dwarf comes up to you and says there are two dragons around the corner, run!

  19. Website.... by TheKubrix · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the interview was a bit sucky, here is the official site for Tron 2.0, its got a pretty neat flash intro....worth a peek

    1. Re:Website.... by iMaalak · · Score: 1

      that site is actually for the upcoming Tron 2.0 video game, i think...

    2. Re:Website.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you even spend some time at that site? I had NOTHING to do with that movie.....

      I hate when people submit crap just to get their precious karma points as fast as they can.......makes me sick :(

  20. Wait for Tron 2 Service Pack 3 by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    If it's from Microsoft, no one will take the leap for a buggy 2.0 release.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    1. Re:Wait for Tron 2 Service Pack 3 by schon · · Score: 2

      If it's from Microsoft, no one will take the leap for a buggy 2.0 release.

      Yeah, they'll all wait for Tron 97.

  21. Wiggum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, three times.

  22. ow by nightsweat · · Score: 1

    It meant a really sore neck from sitting all the way at the end of the first row because my stupid friends couldn't get their act together to get to theater on time opening night.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  23. Speaking of Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember that Tron ride in Disneyland (which I believe is gone now), that was one dope ass ride, and by far the easiest one to get away with masturbat...er, I mean sex, ya.....heh....heh.....

  24. Tron - blech by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Tron was a box office bomb. Some people in the industry said it set the adoption of CG in Hollywood back ten years.

    In fact, much of the "CG" in Tron was hand-animated by some outsourced firm in Asia. The first movie to have "realistic CGI" was The Last Starfighter, with 27 minutes of CGI. Tron, except for the "light cycle" scene, did not have significant CGI.

    Read this history of the field.

    1. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      box office bomb or not, it was and still is a cult favorite.

      It gets to sit with the likes of:

      Rocky Horror Picture Show, Weird Al's UHF, Attack of the Killer Tomatos, et al

      Nothing to stop Disney the corporation, which hasn't had a creative idea since Disney the man died, from cashing in on an ill-concieved sequel.

    2. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      box office bomb or not, it was and still is a cult favorite.

      It gets to sit with the likes of:

      Rocky Horror Picture Show, Weird Al's UHF, Attack of the Killer Tomatos, et al


      Cult favorite for who? Dorks? I never saw Tron (I was only 6 at the time it was released) and I have no interest in ever seeing it. The graphics are absolutely horrible. Even Star Wars IV was light years ahead of Tron!! What the fuck is anyone thinking calling this a good movie?

    3. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I never saw Tron ... and I have no interest in ever seeing it. The graphics are absolutely horrible"

      how do you know the graphics are so horrible when you haven't seen it? Dopey hypocrite that you are.

      besides, the AC said 'cult favorite', which by definition has a small but loyal fanbase. Nothing he listed as an example was a 'good movie', either, but all have their followings.

    4. Re:Tron - blech by rjung2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, Tron directly inspired John Lasseter to get into computer animation, and without him, we wouldn't have Luxo Jr., Pixar Animation, the Toy Story movies, etc., etc.

      For that reason alone, it's enough to give Tron a break.

    5. Re:Tron - blech by freeweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tron was a box office bomb.

      Most good movies are.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    6. Re:Tron - blech by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      As far as Tron not having much CGI, you're right. But, you must realize that it was one of the first movies to use CGI at a time when a hundred computers and tape drives were needed to store the same amount of information you can now store on a single hard drive. In other words, Tron (the movie and story) was ahead its time.
      In addition, I think it is safe to say that had Tron not been released by Disney and Apple had not released such a powerful AD campaign (i.e. the Superbowl 1984esq commercial for the Mac), studios may not have given movies like The Last Starfighter a chance for some years and investors may not have funded the likes of IBM, Apple, and Microsoft R&D.
      You may view Tron as "primitive" today, but it is one of the primary reasons you fork over $9US to watch Pixar's newest creations every Summer.

    7. Re:Tron - blech by demaria · · Score: 2

      Maybe he saw highlights, stills, or the trailer. You only needed to watch the SWII trailer to see that it had some neat cgi and didn't look like Star Wars 1977.

    8. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big bummer is that Pixar won't have anything to do with Tron 2.0. Pixar would prolly do wonders with it. In fact, John Lasseter on board would mean that there would be STORY to go with the eye candy this time.

      Pixar has already published their roadmap for the next five years. No Tron. Alas.

      Then again, if they got Mainframe Entertainment to do the CGI, it might just rock anyway. Remember, Reboot was basically an update of the whole Tron "inside the computer" milieu.

    9. Re:Tron - blech by Lac · · Score: 2

      Tron was a box office bomb. Some people in the industry said it set the adoption of CG in Hollywood back ten years.

      How true. If Tron had never existed, we wouldn't have had to wait until 1985 to see The Last Starfighter. We could have seen it ten years earlier, in 1975, six years before Tron so deeply harmed the industry. Jurassik Park would have appeared in 1983 instead of 1993. And by 1985, of course, we would have seen Toy Story. It makes perfect sense.

      I have read the document you link to (have moderators?). It's an interesting choice of reference. Interesting, because apart from the comment about box-office sales, the author does not seem to agree with you at all.

      Also released in 1981 (and also not a box office success), Tron used 3D computer graphics extensively in both concept and actuality. Although traditional optical effects created the characters' look, the film used the most CGI to date--it took four major CGI companies to achieve it all. The light cycles were done by Magi, the solar sailor ship by Triple-I, the Tron title logo and wireframe world by Robert Abel and Associates, and the bit character and Tron opener by Digital Effects.

      What this author seems to say is that Tron contained a lot of CGI... which shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who has actually seen it. I might add that the following paragraph, which talks about The Last Starfighter, calls it "the next landmark". Yes, the next landmark.

      The first movie to have "realistic CGI" was The Last Starfighter, with 27 minutes of CGI. Tron, except for the "light cycle" scene, did not have significant CGI.

      This makes absolutely no sense at all. Have you seen the movie? Have you even seen the movie? Just look at the damn poster, if you're too lazy. Do you think that "realistic" CGI has anything at all to do with the aesthetics of this film? What would a realistic bit look like, anyway? And, more importantly, who cares? Is Toy Story unimportant just because it does not have "realistic" CGI?

    10. Re:Tron - blech by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      It's kind of odd that all of the pioneers of film computer graphics knew someone who worked on Tron. It's almost like that film ruined the careers of everyone who worked on it, but started the careers of everyone who knew somebody who worked on it.


      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    11. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes absolutely no sense at all. Have you seen the movie? Have you even seen the movie? Just look at the damn poster, if you're too lazy. Do you think that "realistic" CGI has anything at all to do with the aesthetics of this film? What would a realistic bit look like, anyway? And, more importantly, who cares? Is Toy Story unimportant just because it does not have "realistic" CGI?

      Also, in the interviews found on the new DVD, Lisberger specifically states that he believes that much of the charm of TRON is that it dosen't have realistic CGI. TRON uses the look of the early, clunky CG to help transport the audience to its sci-fi/fantasy world. A "realistic" world would not give the audience the same experience of being disconnected from the norm and plugged into the computer(ok, bad pun, sorry).

    12. Re:Tron - blech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "studios may not have given movies like The Last Starfighter a chance for some years"

      And the bad point behind that is?!

    13. Re:Tron - blech by sstaton · · Score: 1
      Four pioneering CGI firms contributed material to Tron. It was definitely a hybrid film, a point made over and over by others, and ironically, featured not only painstakingly handmade "CGI" like effects (the glow effect was brutally expensive and entirely hand done), but also handmade electronic music -- Wendy Carlos' technology at the time was the analog Moog synthesizer.

      The one statement you cannot make is that Tron had little or no CGI. True, The Last Starfighter had more CGI (and it was obvious -- by today's standards -- where the CGI was) but the story of Tron was entirely oriented towards the coming cyberpunk genere.

      --

      The two most common things in the Universe are dark matter and stupidity.

    14. Re:Tron - blech by flynn23 · · Score: 1

      This movie is amazingly prescient, especially after seeing the revised DVD package (the original DVD was a very poor digitization of a very poor film print) and getting to hear the methodology and intent of the producers and writers. The movie tackles many themes, most of which are incredibly relevant today. It was the first movie to really enter the world of computer culture and its users. It was the first movie to truly use CGI as an integral part of the production process. It emphasizes the contrast between the traditional and the future by marrying CGI with printed film effects and animation. It sheds light on the struggles of programmers as artists and the businessmen who exploit their work. It contrasts our concepts of religion and faith with an age filled with machines and science. It foreshadows the Internet and our reliance on it. It hints at the struggles of privacy, security, and integrity in technology. It intimately details the struggles of a dominating force that oppressess technological evolution and liberty (ahemmicrosoftcoughibmsniff). It immerses the viewer in a world that is so fantastically different looking from the real world that it's obvious that you are not here. It opens the door to the concept of virtual reality and realistic simulation. It marries a half synthesized half traditional soundtrack to further underline the contrasts between the real and the virtual worlds. It gives us a brief picture of a moment in time when video games were the rage and the future influence of technology in our lives had not yet been understood. I could go on and on. Regardless of what you may think of the effects or the plot devices or the acting (all of which I think are above par for movies of that era), the fact that the writers nailed so many things on the head, despite being self confessed techno neophytes, is simply amazing. When I look at the movie, I can't think of one theme that isn't incredibly relevant to our world today. Compare that to War Games, which seems silly nowadays.

  25. The bit wasn't a bit! by Wee · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Remind me. What was the Bit?
    It was just a bit - the increment that we could get out of computers at the time.

    The computer's equivalent to an atom?
    Exactly. A zero and a one. A positive or a negative.

    NO! The bit in Tron wasn't a bit at all! It didn't have two states, on and off, yes and no, zero and 1... it had three states: 'yes', 'no', and 'stateless'. It would sit there until Flynn asked it a question and then it would answer yes or no. That's not two states. I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud, but it isn't.

    Now, if they would have had the bit only say 'yes' when the answer to a question was yes (or vice versa: say nothing until the answer is no), then it would have been a bit. Nothing or yes, nothing or no: they should have picked one of those.

    This is just something that's been bugging me since I was like 15 or so is all. Nothing to see, move along...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Possible answers...
      - It was a quantum bit. It had no state until you observed it.
      - It had five states: blank, "YES", "NO", "YESYESYESYESYES", and "NONONONONO"
      - It was a beta version of the magic eight ball

    2. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Does a bit have a state if no one is looking?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, until you measure the state of a bit, the state of that bit is inherently indeterminate, and therefore, from this we can deduce...

      BANG!

      Ugh...

    4. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by DLWormwood · · Score: 1

      It didn't have two states, on and off, yes and no, zero and 1... it had three states: 'yes', 'no', and 'stateless'.

      Actually, at a hardware level, this is an accurate depiction of a "bit." If a logic gate is not powered, it can't be said to have either a low or high state since it can't be measured. Chips and circuitry that handle multiple input or output pins will usually support a "high impedance" state; this allows a manufacturer to leave individual pins unconnected in a complex chip housing. For example, a chip implementing a 4-way AND gate without supporting high impedance would require the fourth pin to be connected high if only 3 inputs are needed. (And connected low in the case of an OR gate.)

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    5. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by squidfood · · Score: 1
      It would sit there until Flynn asked it a question and then it would answer yes or no.

      Foolish, foolish geek.

      What sits is but a Pointer.

      Access it you must.

    6. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Doppleganger · · Score: 1

      Hmm, three states.. I guess it must have been at least a two-bit bit..

    7. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, you've digitized a human and placed him in a computer. A computer where programs are running around in glowing body armor. If you can buy this, a 3 state bit should be easy. ;)

      Poetic license aside, the bit could still be thought of as being correct. Its been a while since I took a computer engineering class (I'm a programmer damnit ;)) but a bit can be high, low, or undetermined. If the voltage is above a certain threshold (i.e. 5 volts) it will be read as on, if it is lower then another threshold (i.e. 3 volts), off. But, I seam to remember that there is a weird dead zone between on and off that can play havoc with your system. In this state the bit could be read as on or off.

      I could be way off (I only passed the class with a B ;)) so please correct me if I'm wrong.

    8. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Wee · · Score: 2
      Actually, at a hardware level, this is an accurate depiction of a "bit." If a logic gate is not powered, it can't be said to have either a low or high state since it can't be measured.

      Well, I'm not much of a hardware engineer, but how could the bit respond unless it was powered? If it could respond to inquiry (i.e., be measured as to which state it happens to be in) then that means it was in fact powered. Yet it had three states while powered, and so therefore it was not a bit at all.

      But since we are talking about what essentially amounts to a cartoon, I'm willing to end the debate in a draw. :-)

      Now for Tron 2.0, I'd buy a group of eight bits, all in a row, "doing the binary wave", in answer to Flynn's questions:

      "Hey byte, how many Recognizers are after us?"
      "<nothing> <nothing> <nothing> yes yes no yes yes"
      That I could see.

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    9. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Wee · · Score: 2
      BTW, I spit coffee out of my nose when I read your response. Well done!

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    10. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Well, I'm not much of a hardware engineer, but how could the bit respond unless it was powered? If it could respond to inquiry (i.e., be measured as to which state it happens to be in) then that means it was in fact powered. Yet it had three states while powered, and so therefore it was not a bit at all.

      Ummm... when queried, the bit had only two states (Yes and No). I too am not a hardware person but it seems to me that the query is exactly what powered the bit and applied whatever bias was needed to have a state.
    11. Re:The bit wasn't a bit! by Wee · · Score: 2
      I too am not a hardware person but it seems to me that the query is exactly what powered the bit and applied whatever bias was needed to have a state.

      It's still pretty fishy in my book. I just can't get past it having three states. I mean, when it wasn't responding it wasn't inanimate -- it was moving around and pulsing and such. Although maybe it had some other deal which moved it about and the "bitness" was only that part which responded to a query (ie, unpowered until queried)? But that moves away from it being a "fundamental" particle.

      I think Tron fudged the whol "bit" thing.

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  26. MCP=MS Windows by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Informative

    The MCP controlled access to the I/O system, or tried to. It died when a program got direct access to I/O. While it seemed to have the potential for much more, it spent a lot of its time on games. It obliterated other programs by absorbing their functionality. At its core, when everything else was stripped away, it had a teletype interface. Without it, the system had a lot more power (think CPU cycles). What it feared most was a debugging tool and it was destroyed by source code. (This last bit is clearly prophetic =)

    1. Re:MCP=MS Windows by bgspence · · Score: 1

      The Burroughs B5000, B6000 and B7000 series mainframe's operating systems were called Master Control Programs (MCPs.) I don't know if Lisberger knew this, but they were the most advanced operating systems of their time (or probably any time since!) A few links http://www.ajwm.net/amayer/papers/B5000.html or http://www.ardenstone.com/projects/cs63/summary.ph p

      They were Algol machines with NO assembly language. Everything was high level languages. Algol mapped very directly to the low level machine op codes.

      Memory was protected at the word level using additional 'tag' bits which defined the semantics of each 48 bit memory word. A hardware exception would occur if a data store was attempted into a program code word or a data pointer.

      All pointer or array memory access was bounds checked thru data descriptors. It was physically impossible to index into the 18th byte of a 17 byte array. The data descriptor defined the base address of the array, the array size and the data object size (6-bit byte, 8 bit byte, word, or double.)

      The machine was stack based. An ADD op code was a single byte, adding the top two values on the stack. If one of the items on the stack wasn't a data word (tag 0 or 2) then it was evaluated to resolve to a data value. A data descriptor (tag 5) on the stack would ned the next value on the stack to be evaluated to provide an index value into the data array descriptor. The index value would be compared to the bounds field of the descriptor to validate the indexing operation. If the index was legal the data item (6-bit, 8-bit word or double) would be fetched from memory. Or it might be yet another descriptor! The system knew because of the tag bits on the fetched word. Vectors could hold mixtures of data words and data descriptor words.

      Memory was accessed via index registers. You NEVER addressed absolute memory addresses. All memory access was offset from lexigraphic relative addresses. Nothing was absolute, so virtual memory at the memory vector or array level was built into the system design. The absolute address of a memory segment could change by simply changing its descriptor's base address. Each descriptior had a presence bit, flaging the semantics of its base address. If the presence bit was off, the base address was the address on disk where the non present memory could be found. A presence bit interrupt occured when attempting to fetch a non present value. The OS would make space for the memory (using the size info in the descriptor), read in the memory from disk, and update the descriptor to point to the data now in memory and retry the fetch which triggered the presence bit interrupt.

      And there was lots more cool stuff. Damn I miss an OS designed to run correctly. Burroughs lost out to leaner systems which ran faster, without the cost of all those transistors insuring integrity. It cost twice as much to insure validity than to run flat out blind. In any case, RISC would have probably beat out its very CISC design.

    2. Re:MCP=MS Windows by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      It obliterated other programs by absorbing their functionality.

      Kinda like the GNOME Panel.

      But I like GNOME...

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  27. Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by sam_handelman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, as it turns out, it's very funny.

    At the time, the whole millenialist rigamarole, with computers serving as the mark of the beast, had not permeated popular culture.

    Then, in this silly movie there are computer programs which get died red in order to show their obsequious obedience to antichrist, I mean to the Master Control Program.

    It's an amusing transposition - much more amusing than it was at the time (oh, the commie/atheist/roman computer programs are forcing the christian computer programs to fight in gladiatorial games,) since computers themselves have had a lot of PR as instruments of Satan since then.

    Q: Moby's live show has a grand finale where he takes a beam of light to the head and arcs his arm in a similar fashion to the grand finale of Tron... A: ... Anytime a work like this can go from one generation to the next, it means something ...

    Moby was born in 1965. He's 38 years old. Come on.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      If the bad guys had been blue, the Mouse would've faced a lawsuit from Big Blue!

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    2. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born in 1965 and I'm only 37!?

    3. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dennis: "I'm 37. I'm not old."

    4. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moby is ghey.

      Eminem told me so at the grammies.

      Eminem is my hero.

      Eminem knows what's cool and Moby ain't it yo.

    5. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Black_Logic · · Score: 1

      I think the generational reference refers to Moby's audience not himself

      --
      Ansi's and stupid tricks!
    6. Re:Crypto biblical deal creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you ever watch the MTV Video awards or any show on MTV for that matter, it really is like watching "Tarzan". However, Tarzan was raised by apes so gradually he started to mimic the apes as far as behavior. These white kids obviously weren't raised by apes but you would swear they were whenever you see them acting (or better yet pretending) as if they were a bunch of nigger's with their ridiculous speech patterns and hand gestures.

      It really is laughable. It is as if the evolution of the human race is going back to apes instead of the other way around. Another thing why do nigger's always thank god in their acceptance speeches. If god is so good why the hell did he make these nigger's so damn ugly and stupid?

      The lie was that forced equality would elevate the black race and not damage the White Race. The obvious truth is it did not elevate the black race but dragged the white race down to nigger level.

  28. The Dreams of a boy... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    ... when I was about 8 or so years old I saw tron - and at night I used to go to sleep praying that god would give me one of those bars that turned into the motorcycles from that one scene where they were racing in the grid (cant remember it too well now). I would awaken in the morning and look under my bed - but no magical motocycle rod was to be found. I did this for weeks after seeing that movie.

  29. Re:The Kool-Aid Man will PUNCH YOUR CROTCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod this mofo up! you cute motherufkers!

  30. Time Warp to 1981 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First it's Pitfall, then Tron.

    What's next, an interview with the creator of parachute pants?

  31. Re:May I have your attention.. This is Barry Reisw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least he's open about it. Much worse are the people who have issues with their sexuality who vainly attempt to hide it by persecuting others. If I saw both his resume and your resume on my desk, take a guess which one would be quicker to the shredder? Here's a hint: it's yours.

  32. Filter Magazine by Kylow · · Score: 1

    Actually, its from Filter Magazine, not aintitcool.

    1. Re:Filter Magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't matter if it came from a cow's ass, it still sucks

  33. Re:Tron - blech-Reality check. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Of course I'm flattered. Who wouldn't be? Anytime a work like this can go from one generation to the next, it means something. That's great. A major accomplishment. So many of the films that are being made today are going to end up in that bin at Blockbuster, where hundreds of tapes are priced at $3.99. I walk in there with my son and it's like a compost heap. And my son says, "Just think, Dad. All of these people, when they were making these movies, thought they were big shots. "

    Out of the mouth of babes.

  34. Thanks for the non-info by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    BTW, that DVD is great. The directors commentary is just flat spectacular.

    Is it really too much to tell us why you think it is spectacular??? Then we could make up our own minds whether it's worth getting or not. "I own this product and I think it's just great. You should own it too. The end."

    GMD

    1. Re:Thanks for the non-info by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      Because it's jammed with so much cool sh*t that the typical geek will cream his pants for a week enjoying it all. And the director's commentary is awesome.

      I love special edition DVDs, especially the multi-disc sets, and the Tron DVD is definitely in the top five.

    2. Re:Thanks for the non-info by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      Because it's jammed with so much cool sh*t that the typical geek will cream his pants for a week enjoying it all.

      Yes, but what does that mean?

      Could you please give maybe one or two examples of what you think is so cool? Because I like Tron a lot, but I'm not currently aware of any reason I should own it--certainly my geek cred is just fine as it is :)

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Thanks for the non-info by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      Aw, geez, I thought anyone with DVD experience could have doped this out already:

      • Anamorphic Widescreen - 1.85:1
      • Dolby Digital 5.1 - English
      • Audio Commentary - 1. Steven Lisberger, Donald Kushner, Harrison Ellenshaw and Richard Taylor
      • Original Theatrical Trailer
      • Scene Access
      • Interactive Menus
      • Full Frame version
      • Deleted Scenes
      • Additional Footage - Pre-production
      • Animation Tests
      • Computer Animation Design and Memo reels
      • Deleted Soundtrack Music
      • Electronic Press Kit
      • Documentary - "The Making of TRON" (BIG!)
      • Film-to-Storyboard Comparison
      • Text/Photo Galleries - Stills and production photos
      • Production Art
    4. Re:Thanks for the non-info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, basically, they put their /tmp directory on it, right?

    5. Re:Thanks for the non-info by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that peer-pressure isn't be part of the geek community?

      The words "Flamebait" and "troll" come to mind... (No, not applying to you.)

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  35. Registered user? by way2trivial · · Score: 0

    "I think that's a requirement of being a registered linux user, right? "

    oh crap, was I supposed to register?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  36. Re:The Dreams of a boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mmm hmmm. No doubt the motorcycle would have allowed you to "rescue" your mother from the perverse sexual depredations that your father continually subjected her to.

  37. there's also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.tronkillerapp.com

  38. tron 2.0 by tux-sucks · · Score: 1

    So is Tron 2 going to live up to the original, by sucking badly, and not make any sense to anyone except computer geeks? And then in 20 years we will all like it.

    Seriously, I remember not too long ago hearing Steven Lisberger talking about how Tron "wasn't very good." It seems the new public's opinion and Disney's have somehow swayed his own.

    Mod me down for being a skeptic.

  39. Re:The Dreams of a boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does someone pay you to be this stupid?

  40. Re:The Kool-Aid Man will PUNCH YOUR CROTCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah yeah. Another ripoff of PUNCH THE MONKEY.

  41. How about "The Black Hole" by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Check out

    http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/black_h ole_retrospective_000602.html

    if you had forgotten about that Disney ur-classic "The Black Hole."

  42. glTron by joepeg · · Score: 1
    found this thru the comments on the article:



    Heres a cool lightcylce game: glTron

    --

    ZEN is a prime number in base-36

  43. worst dialogue ever. by DonkeyJimmy · · Score: 1

    Remind me. What was the Bit?

    It was just a bit--the increment that we could get out of computers at the time.

    The computer's equivalent to an atom?

    Exactly. A zero and a one. A positive or a negative.



    I wish I could unread that.

    --
    "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
  44. AIC has ceased to be relevant by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 3
    Ain't It Cool has long ago transformed itself to Ain't It Crap. Far be it for me to troll on poor Harry; others do it better than I can ever do. It's just the "Local Boy Makes Town Proud" headline has faded and so has AIC.

    This interview just bares this out. No interviewing skills demonstrated, meandering thought processes and the general kiss-ass attitude is just overbearing. This is hardly an endorsement for Filter Magazine. Sheesh, if this is what they call content, then I'm moving my mouse over to the X button in a hurry.

    1. Re:AIC has ceased to be relevant by fliptout · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I have friends here in Austin who have spotted Harry and confirmed that he is a fatass Comic book clerk clone.

      Personally, I used to like the site a few years ago, but now it is totally nauseating.

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
  45. My theory about brontasuars by A. Elk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XEROX as in X... er, "I'm a pedantic dweeb"

  46. c'est la p... aw fukkit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Monolith wanted their upcoming TRON 2.0 game to be based off of the sequel, but after waiting so long they gave up "

    Kinda like what happened the first time!

  47. Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by Chasuk · · Score: 1

    This is not a flame or a troll, but an expression of honest opinion. Mod as you see appropriate.

    I hated Battlestar Galactica, but I thought it was much better than Tron. Understand that before you read further.

    Are you ready? Okay....

    Twenty years ago, Tron was not a good movie. It looked cheesey and cheap even then. The plot and storyline were so trite and unbelievable that it made Fantastic Voyage look like a good movie (and that should be impossible).

    It also starred Bruce Boxleitner, one of the worst actors of any generation. Patrick Wayne is absolutely mesmerizing compared to Bruce. Christ, even David Hasselhoff is a acting god by comparison! In fact, now that I think about it, I can make the same comparison with Doug McClure...

    Blade Runner came out the same year as Tron, and it is infinitely more-deserving of a sequel. It looked good then, and looks good 20 years later. Stylistically, it set a standard for SF movies that has never been equalled.

    The Black Hole, another piece of drek, deserves a sequel before Tron, and The Black Hole is perhaps Disney's worst film ever.

    Okay, I was 21 when Tron came out, and I suspect that many of its enthusiasts were, at the most, 12, but a bad movie is a bad movie. Watch it again and shatter your illusions, then write to the producer asking them to think again before any money is wasted on the sequel.

    The Science Fiction franchise that _I_ would like to see reborn is Dr Who. Flame me if you will, but that was great Science Fiction! :-)

  48. Gag Order Marketing? by gdyas · · Score: 2

    He doesn't talk much about the sequel Tron 2.0 (because of a Disney gag order)

    Ah yes, this must be one of those "stealth" marketing jobs, where they get signed agreements and/or threaten to sue anyone who so much as mentions a prospective film before its release. That way, nobody knows a damn thing about it until it comes out. I mean, we don't want to generate any buzz, develop a fan community, or leak out info that might drive potential customers mad with lust for the sequel, right? Right. I mean, it's all just so much darn work!

    Where do I go to become a corporate marketing genius like the folks at Disney?

    --

    The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.

    1. Re:Gag Order Marketing? by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      That way, nobody knows a damn thing about it until it comes out. I mean, we don't want to generate any buzz, develop a fan community, or leak out info that might drive potential customers mad with lust for the sequel, right?

      All these posts complaining about the gag order and wondering what Tron 2.0 is really about ... you don't think this qualifies as "buzz"??
  49. Re:May I have your attention.. This is Barry Reisw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, like you would even know my resume if you saw it. You don't even know my name. By the way, chances are that it would be ME looking at YOUR resume. I am the manager. I do the hiring. If I were looking for a job at a different place it would be somebody much more important than you screening the resume. Probably the CEO or CFO most likely.

    Barry, on the other hand, has revealed the truth about himself and will likely never be hired again.

  50. Traficant will STAB YOUR CROTCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  51. Re:Dr Who Anti-Flame by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

    This should protect you one flame. I would gladly pay to see the Daleks done with a bigger budget.

    --
    Sleep is for the Weak
  52. Re:glTron - sorry by joepeg · · Score: 1
    what the hell...


    Armagetron, TRON, java, better java, MetaTRON, BMTron (java), and of course this

    --

    ZEN is a prime number in base-36

  53. Hypocritical, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10:05 Article on poisoning P2P networks
    10:47 Article giving free publicity to the company that commercialized CDDB
    4:18 Article giving free publicity to (MPAA member) Disney for Tron and Tron 2

    ???

    Profit.

  54. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by kisrael · · Score: 2

    I think you really missed the whole Tron vibe.

    It was a visceral glimpse into cyberspace, 2 years before Neuromancer.

    I don't think it looked cheesy and cheap so much as other worldly. Blade Runner probably did the noir vibe better than Tron did cyberspace, but who wants to do a sequel to that...not would most things pale in comparison to that, but no company will pay for product placement, given the curse of the first....

    Yes the acting was bad...I cringe everytime I hear the delivery of "The best programmer Encom ever had, and he ends up playing Space Cowboy in some back room" but it wasn't about the plot or the acting so much as the world...

    All those other films you mentioned...all of them were lacking one important thing...deadly looking lowslung sleek black battletanks.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  55. Evil Downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, this is Disney we're talking about here...I wonder what kind of propaganda they're going to throw into Tron justifying the Hollings crap and other rights-restrictive schemes? If Tron 2 fails, it won't be for the same reasons as the first--it'll be because Disney will make consumers feel like criminals unentitled to their fair-use rights...again.

  56. All-time favorite Tron/political quote.... by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 2
    ...from Dennis Miller during the 1992 election season.

    "Do we really want Al Gore for a vice predident?! Come on, his favorite movie is "TRON" for fucks sake!"

  57. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by DraKKon · · Score: 1

    Disney is fscking dead. Look at all of the horrible part 2 movies they Disney has released over the last few years.. Beauty and the beast 2, 102 dalmations, return to neverland, lady and the tramp 2.. dead... now tron 2.. key-ryst! Stop it!

    --
    "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
  58. moby in time distortion shock by davesag · · Score: 1
    Moby was born in 1965. He's 38 years old. Come on.

    um, i was born in 1965 but i am only 36. how come moby gets an extra 2 years?

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    1. Re:moby in time distortion shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1965 was a leap year in your timezone.

  59. Yuck by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Because it's jammed with so much cool sh*t that the typical geek will cream his pants for a week enjoying it all.

    Ewwww! Well if it's packed full of fecal matter and will cause me to spontaneously ejaculate in my pants multiple times maybe I'll just skip it.

    GMD

  60. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by susano_otter · · Score: 2
    Clearly you're assuming these sequels were supposed to be good. In reality, quality was completely irrelevant. Disney intended these movies to generate additional cashflow from their core demographic (children and their parents) with minimal overhead. They're not spectacular, and most of them went direct-to-video, but if you're a parent with a preadolescent child, you probably shelled out for them to see it anyway. Don't judge Disney by its franchise perpetuators, judge it by its flagship offerings.

    Hrm. Those haven't been that great either, recently... never mind.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  61. Re:Tron - flawed gem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The basic problem with TRON was that it was a Disney product.

    This (a) inhibited the film from going too far down the adult (no, I don't mean XXX) road and filling out the story (b) turned off many people who thought that Disney=icky kids' movie (c) turned off families who'd go to see Disney=kids' entertainment films and found this wasn't it.

    As happens in cases like this with time the film is regarded more on its own merits and has become a geek cult classic.

    The point was taken by Disney and led to the decision to set up Touchstone Pictures, its adult film label.

    The film is undoubtably flawed and doesn't reach its potential. However, at the time, when PC's were just starting to get out of the geek underground, its graphics and the premise of the story line were a ground-breaking achievement.

    (Remembers seeing it in 70mm and surround sound in Leicester Square in London on first release in 1982 and being totally blown away in the way that a previous generation had been by the premiere of 2001...)

    The last shot, of the sun going down over Los Angeles until the streets light up and it looks like a circuit board, for me is up there with the bone-rocket transition in Space Odyssey.

  62. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by rjung2k · · Score: 1

    Who said Tron was good SF?

    I like it because it's cheesy!

  63. Hi-Z... by mekkab · · Score: 2

    digital binary logic calls this the Hi-Z (high impedence) setting. It's not logic zero (voltage 0, voltage -5, etc.), its not logic one (voltage 5, etc.) it's hi-z.

    It's a bitch but thats how the circuits are defined.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  64. Minor nitpick by fliptout · · Score: 1

    I think The Wrath of Khan was the first movie with realistic cgi. Anywho.

    I agree that Tron is a piece of crap. I guess you either love it or hate it.

    --
    A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
  65. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by amuro98 · · Score: 1

    Consider yourself lucky if you consider Black Hole Disney's worst movie... They did quite a bit of live action stuff back in the 60s and 70s...most of which makes Black Hole look like it had excellent acting and storywriting.

    I still remember being surprised that Black Hole featured violence, death, and a story in which the good guys don't "win."

    Dr. Who would certainly be a great show to redo - but only if you avoid the problems the Fox movie had... Though I'd be afraid of what American writers would do the poor Doctor... I have images of him turning into a sort of ethereal Indiana Jones - punching and shooting his enemies - something that his other 9 incarnations never did.

    I'd also like to see Blake's 7 redone, but fear that the witty sarcasm would have to be dumbed down, and a laugh track added so the putzes at home would know when to laugh and feel smart.

  66. Tron 2??? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    Well, as long as there is as much spandex as in the first one, I'm game!

  67. D'oh Re:Tron 2? by gilroy · · Score: 2
    I'd resolved to simply lurk, until I read this

    The Matrix on the other hand was well explained/executed and the only question I had leaving was what the Oracle was.

    Duh-huh, what?? The Matrix is like the soggy paper towel of movies: The more you watch it, the more it decomposes into little lint balls. The AIs use humans for power?? So, they store and feed billions of people, plus expend untold megajoules on the whole distribution system, instead of tapping the nuclear fusion plants directly? Or sending up solar satellites above the atmospheric inteference?


    There exists on the face of a mechanized Earth a city which is simultaneously (a) utterly secret and camouflage yet (b) densely populated and technologically extravagant?


    The humans know enough to bend the rules and make 5-mile jumps but not to escape agents?


    The Matrix was the worst kind of psuedo-mystic comic-book cookie-cutter claptrap to come down the pike in many a year. Fun to watch, soemwhat, but hardly a great movie.

    1. Re:D'oh Re:Tron 2? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      And things in Tron made any more sense?

      It was clear that the Matrix was "intended to be a fantasy...or is it?" type film. The whole idea of having an alternate world with alternate physics was to get you to wonder, "what is real?"

      But then, with the movie's comic-book origins, I'm probably reading too far into it, anyway. (Don't flame me saying comic books aren't deep...some are, but I don't know which ones.)

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    2. Re:D'oh Re:Tron 2? by lugonn · · Score: 1
      Suspension of disbelief is not the same as introducing a plot device and then pretending it's not there, but I'll address your argument anyway...cause I'm a geek.

      Fusion is not a renewable energy resource, you need fuel (like duetirium which comes from space/moon), the machines didn't have it. So they figured out a way to use humans as a renewable energy source to power the fusion reaction.

      It doesn't have to be scientifically sound, any explaination to keep the disbelief going. At least they bothered to explain that the machines need humans for power in the first place. If it were Tron, we would've just been told machines were using humans as slaves and then there would've been a fight. I would be wondering why the machines needed human slaves. See the difference?

      And the human city was deep underground, away from the machines enclaves, not on the surface.

      If you wanna go into why the machines couldn't go and attack the city...because of the EMP cannons they couldn't even get close to the city. They couldn't drop a bomb on it either, it's underground. The only way to stop the human revolution is to stop them from hacking the Matrix by shutting down the Zion mainframe. The machines can't attack the humans directly(EMP weapons), and the humans can't attack the machines directly(outnumbered).

    3. Re:D'oh Re:Tron 2? by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      It doesn't have to be scientifically sound, any explaination to keep the disbelief going.

      You know, "suspension of disbelief" is not the same as "unbelievable". When the plot device used is outrageously stupid, it's not a clever trick to "suspend your disbelief". It's just outrageously stupid.


      Growing a human being for energy is outrageously stupid ... because growing a human being consumes far more energy than it produces. It's like running SLAC to produce antimatter to use in your reactor -- you invest many, many times more energy than you get out. If they have the energy to keep the human population alive and reproducing -- and if that energy is enough to nourish the machines -- then they have enough energy to run the machine civilization without the humans.


      If they need the people as batteries, then they could just as well use, say, dogs. Or, for that matter, humans whose cerebral cortex had been damaged. No will = no desire to "awake" or revolt = no need for The Matrix at all.


      This wasn't a legitimate plot device to keep the action rolling. It was a careless stupid device chosen for aesthetics alone, whose actual effect is to bring the action to a screeching halt as you sit there and ponder, "Whaaa?"


      Unless of course you just let the movie wash over you... in which, an intelligent conversation on this matter will be impossible.


      Oh, and by the way... deuterium comes from, among other things, seawater. No need to go to the Moon.

    4. Re:D'oh Re:Tron 2? by lugonn · · Score: 1
      Good point. The humans are an ineffcient energy source. I thought it was a lot better than a human reduced to energy and sucked inside a computer to battle his way out. Both movies have pretty rediculous plots, but are fun to watch anyway.

      I own a copy of Tron, but not The Matrix...ahhh nostalgia.

  68. Danger, Will Robinson ... Logic Error! Logic Erro by gilroy · · Score: 2
    Blockquoth the poster:

    The Black Hole, another piece of drek, deserves a sequel before Tron, and The Black Hole is perhaps Disney's worst film ever.

    But wait. The Black Hole deserves a sequel first because (one must conclude) it's a better film than Tron. But it is also "Disney's worst film ever", meaning that any other Disney film is better than The Black Hole.


    Yet Tron was a Disney film! So it must be better than The Black Hole, even though it has been posited to be worse than The Black Hole. You, my friend, have reasoned to a contradiction. Pffft! You disappear in a puff of mis-logic.

  69. mmmmm by tabby · · Score: 1

    Bruce Boxleitner in spandex. What more do you need?

    --
    I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
  70. Obligatory by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Tron was a box office bomb.

    1. Make first CG movie
    2. Lose Money
    3. Make Sequel
    4. ????
    5. Profit!

  71. The movie title may be more clever than you think by ral · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The movie was rendered on a PDP-10 (well, a clone actually, but that doesn't matter) which had an instruction called TRON. I always thought the anti-christ-like character in the movie was so named because TRON's opcode expressed in octal, which was the convention for the PDP-10, is 666.

    Anobody know if it was just a coincidence?

  72. Re: Box office bomb by Animats · · Score: 2
    Disney was frantically trying to come up with an answer to Star Wars. Their first attempt was The Black Hole, which also described its profit picture. Tron was try #2, also a flop.

    My main point about Tron was that many of the effects in Tron which today look like "obvious CG", weren't. All those nifty glow effects in scenes with live characters were hand animated.

    I was surprised at the time that Burroughs didn't sue them for the use of the term "Master Control Program" in a derogatory way. The Burroughs MCP was a real, and quite good, operating system.

    The Last Starfighter was the "Final Fantasy" of its day - good CG, miserable plot. But it was the movie that made it clear that minatures and matte paintings were on the way out. Tron was sort of "gee whiz, we can show the inside of a computer, but what else would we do this way?". The Last Starfighter was "this stuff is going to be a mainstream production tool."

    A current graphics milestone: "Britney's Dance Beat" for PS2. The game sucks, but the character rendering is perhaps the best ever seen in a game.

  73. Blah, blah, blah by Chexsum · · Score: 0

    TRON is the best geek movie!

    Lets have a moment of silence for TRON...

    --
    Pixels keep you awake!
  74. Re:Tron - flawed gem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we don't want to hear about no bone-rockets

  75. mod parent up by e7 · · Score: 1



    n/t

    --
    Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
  76. Re:Danger, Will Robinson ... Logic Error! Logic Er by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see you're a graduate of Medfield College.

  77. Re:Ah, Peter Jurasik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Tron to Babylon 5.

  78. The word Disney was mentioned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me I have *puke*

  79. Soundtrack by Draoi · · Score: 2

    Wha'?? No mention of Wendy Carlos and the wonderful Tron soundtrack??

    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

  80. Gag order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this will be a funny movie?

  81. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by MoonFacedAssassin · · Score: 1

    It also starred Bruce Boxleitner, one of the worst actors of any generation...

    It is quite obvious Bruce Boxleitner acts well enough to be in not only film, but also, two television series, one of which won many emmys. Granted, the emmys aren't necessarily the best way to judge a TV series, but if you actually watch Babylon 5, you wouldn't see him as such a terrible actor.

    --
    I am a meat popsicle.
  82. Light cycle screen saver... by DirkDaring · · Score: 0

    I'm still looking for a good one. Any out there?

  83. Can't be good by soupforare · · Score: 1

    Like many other useless sequels, this Can't Be Good(tm)

    For me, the only thing that could salvage the effort would be Wendy Carlos doing the soundtrack again. Then at least we could listen to some kickass music

    It'll probably be marketed at early/mid teenaged kids and have shite techno/dj 'gods' doing the music.

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
  84. Official Site for Tron 2.0/Killer App by paulcammish · · Score: 1
    it might be worth chekcing out the "Official" Tron 2.0/Killer App site...

    www.tron20.net/

    It got me intereseted at least, even if it is full of Flash...

  85. Re:May I have your attention.. This is Barry Reisw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're kinda cute.

  86. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by flynn23 · · Score: 1
    I will give you that a Dr. Who film needs to be done. Not only is it great sci-fi, but it was the longest running sci-fi teevee show ever.

    But your comment that Blade Runner is somehow superior to Tron concerns me. Granted, Blade Runner's story was crafted by one of the greatest sci-fi authors in the 20th century. And the film adaption barely captures most of the themes of Dick's book and certainly not some of the more visionary issues (the mood organ being a great metaphor for a current state of prozac popping society). But the film looks absolutely dated today. The dreary backdrop is obviously out of touch with today's green movement as is the ridiculous notion of space travel that infected all pre-Apollo sci-fi artists. Tron is much more relevant to today than Blade Runner ever has hope to be. Let alone Ridley Scott's penchant for smoke everywhere.

  87. Binary isn't everything... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

    Trinary exists. It's even common, in the case of "high impedance."

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  88. Re: Box office bomb by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    (* The Last Starfighter was the "Final Fantasy" of its day - good CG, miserable plot. But it was the movie that made it clear that minatures and matte paintings were on the way out. *)

    My reading suggests that CG was looked down on in Holywood after Tron until Terminator II made big bucks. This seems to be the turning point. Before that, it seemed to doom films WRT profits. If GC did not equal profits, then directors avoided it. James Cameron was happy with small-scale CG from Abyss, so was willing to use more for later films such as T2, and of course Titanic. He is known for his risk-taking in general. (Titanic was considered a huge gamble and he risked his own future returns on it.)

    The Last Starfighter was pretty much a break-even film, wasn't it?

  89. Re: History of Comp. Graphics in movies by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    (* Read this history of the field. [siggraph.org] *)

    I read this and have been poking around on Google.

    It seems the first movie to use "3D" computer graphics was FutureWorld in 1976 where a human head was allegedly shown digitized into polygons. (It was the sequel to WestWorld, where android cowboys in a theme-park turn murderous. The original used some computer processing, but not 3D renderings.)

    I have never seen FutureWorld, nor could find any screenshots of the CG in it. Has anybody here seen it and have comments?

    Another oddity is about CG in the original Star Wars. Some accounts said they showed wire-frame "navigation" renderings of the Death Star tunnel on some of the ship equipment, but other accounts say that such was later added and that the original had zilch computer graphics whatsoever. IOW, the accounts seem to conflict.

  90. What the sequel *should* be about by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    2 should feature a cyber battle between a kid and the likes of Microsoft and DMCA who want to control his computer and content.

  91. Re:D'oh Re:Tron 2? Deep Comic by lugonn · · Score: 1
    I'm not a comic book fan. But there is one comic I do collect...Dawn. You've never seen better pin-up art in your life!

    It's more art novella than comic book, and the story is a weird mix of sex, violence, and religious themes. Kinda like life. I thought it was deep.

  92. Ah, David Warner by Thorkytel+Ant-Head · · Score: 1

    From TRON to Babylon 5. .

  93. Re:Tron 2.0? You've Got to be Kidding! by Chasuk · · Score: 2

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I loved Babylon 5, but one of my few misgivings about the show was that they let Bruce Boxleitner anywhere near it.

    I consider Ralph Fiennes, Dame Judi Dench, Pete Postlethwaite, Jeremy Irons, Cate Blanchett, and Dame Maggie Smith to be good actors.

    I consider Tom Hanks, Jackie Chan, Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and (the late) John Wayne to be non-actors, but rather familiar, reassuring presences.

    I consider Bruce Boxleitner, David Hasselhoff, Patrick Wayne, (the late) Doug McClure, Lindsay Wagner, Steven Seagal, Cheryl Ladd, Chuck Norris, and Jean-Claude Van Damme to be bad actors who have inexplicably (to me) ingratiated themselves with the film-going public.

    I know, it might be unfair to include the action heroes in my list, who largely have no pretension of being actors, but I include them for one simple reason: too many people fail to distinguish between an actor and a star, and the difference is relevant to this discussion.

    Note that I am not claiming that actors are never stars, or vice-versa, but that the two are not necessarily (or even often) connected.

  94. Re:The movie title may be more clever than you thi by voodoo1man · · Score: 1

    Nope, looks like a cool coincidence. Didn't know that one before. Here's a link about the pdp-10 clone III (Information International, Inc.) used for Tron. Supposedly it was the fastest pdp-10 system in the world.

    --

    In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.