Slashdot Mirror


Tron: Legacy — Too Much Imagination Required?

MoldySpore writes "Stepping back from the positive and negative reviews of the new Tron sequel, Tron: Legacy (which has so far amassed over $111,000,000 world-wide), something occurred to me after seeing the movie and reading the numerous reviews. It seems many of the reviews, and perhaps the reviewers themselves, can be split into two categories: those who saw the original Tron when it came out and can put the new movie in context, and those who either watched Tron recently to prepare for the sequel or never saw it and jumped right into the new movie." Read on for the rest of MoldySpore's thoughts.
"While nostalgia plays an important role in any franchise's resurrection, technology has come so far in the 28 years since the original release of Tron, it would seem the human imagination regarding technology has become somewhat disenchanted. Back in 1982, most anyone who saw Tron (or a few years after, as it garnered 'cult classic' status) was captivated, not just by the amazing computer-generated graphics of the time, but about the possibility of a world inside a computer system, where programs walk around and interact with each other like humans, where bits and bytes are interactive things you could touch and see, and where artificial intelligence was something to be feared (in the form of the MCP) rather than embraced.

Most of my friends were born in the '80s, and the ones that saw the original Tron were much more open to the storyline of Tron: Legacy than the ones who never saw the original or who watched it only recently to prepare for watching the new movie. While they all agreed the CG and 3D was amazing, they felt the story was 'unimaginative' or 'run-of-the-mill.' Also, many people born later, such as my younger sister, who is very tech savvy herself, seemed to dismiss the plot and characters completely, instead speaking only of the quality of the graphics and the music. I believe this speaks to how the human race has grown out of its own imagination when it comes to technology since it entered the digital age. Young people can't see past the fact that there isn't a world inside the computer, that programs are just tools to be used by humans, and artificial intelligence is something discussed on a daily basis.

I'd be interested to hear what the Slashdot community's experiences and feelings have been about the new movie and its effect on the people who went and saw it. Imagination is something uniquely human and has always played an important part in our ability to look past our current limitations. With negative reviews of the new movie often referencing the 'sub-moronic script that feels like it was written by people who had never used a computer,' has some of this been lost now that digital technology is part of our daily lives? Does this signal a movement toward humans becoming indifferent to technological advances, and by association, the hindering of outside-the-box thinking when it comes to technology?"

6 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. 3 generations watched Tron on Xmas Eve by microcars · · Score: 5, Interesting
    - the original Tron, on XMAS eve as a family.

    That would be me, my wife, her son and daughter in law and their 3 teenage boys (the grandkids)

    I think we had the entire spectrum of possible viewers there that night.
    I saw the film when it came out in 1982 and remember how great it was in the context of the day.
    My wife saw it but doesn't remember much because she was too busy being a Mom and dealing with her 8 year old SON who she had apparently taken to the theater to see TRON.
    She spend most of the movie saying "I don't understand what is going on, which one is Tron? They all look alike, I don't remember any of this".
    Her son (now 36) sat silently and did not comment. I'm pretty sure he lapped it up but did not want to admit it to his kids.

    And while the movie is on I am trying to explain the context of the original to the 3 boys who see an arcade filled with video games and think WTF is up with that?
    They paid attention and just dealt with it.
    As soon as it was done, the youngest went outside and made a snowman while the other 2 made a few comments about how dull the story was.
    That and a discussion ensued about "Why do movies always make the future look like flat grids and cubes and things?" Which then became a discussion of vector graphics which then bored the hell out of them.

    Then my wife and I took the 3 grandkids to Tron: Legacy in 3D yesterday.
    I personally thought the story was better and that it was not really necessary to have seen the original, my wife agreed but then she will forget what Tron:Legacy was about in a month or so anyways.

    However, she was obsessed with how they got Jeff Bridges to look old and young in the same film.
    The 3 teenage boys had a great time with the new film and during the *very* short discussion that followed before they began to wrestle they decided that they liked seeing the original before the new one.
    This was a surprise for me.
    One of them pointed out to the others "Hey remember how dated the original looked and it was only 27 years old? How do you think this film is going to look to us in 27 years?" This then started a discussion about the future and technology that stopped as soon as they got home and started a snowball fight.

    --
    I like microcars
  2. Re:I think most people missed the point by Copperhamster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting thing most of the people I have talked to have missed. They've commented that CLU looked a little off, especially in the eyes. So the conclusion of many is that the tech just ain't quite there, however something occurred when watching (I was looking specifically for this bit).

    When Flynn is having his storytime with his son at the beginning of the movie, he's also digitally restored to a youthful appearance. And he looks fine to me. There's none of whatever it is, and I agree it was there, that made CLU slightly bothersome to look at, at least for me. Therefore I believe that CLU's slightly off appearance, trigger to the uncanny valley as it were, is intentional.

    I will admit there is another possibility, which is that it was there, however the more real backdrop of a young kid's bedroom vs the high contrast shiny of the world of the ghosts inside of the machine muted the effect enough to not be bothersome. That the setting compensated for the flaws in the composition, as it were.

  3. It's a Fantasy movie not Scifi by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tron is no more Scifi than Starwars was. Just because there's space or computers involved in the plot does not make it Scifi. I'm not saying either were bad movies, but really, if every single aspect of the movie is scientifically impossible it's FANTASY not science fiction.
    Look at this garbage: http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi
    WALL-E is Scifi?
    The Thing?
    Back to the Future?
    The Iron giant?

    The fact of the matter is, most people don't know enough about science to know this stuff isn't possible. But today most people DO know enough about computers to know that Tron isn't possible. Now if we could figure out how to make relativity required for facebook updates we might get somewhere.

    1. Re:It's a Fantasy movie not Scifi by Ramze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      science fiction
      n.
      A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

      Science fiction is FANTASY -- by definition! Your statement : "if every single aspect of the movie is scientifically impossible it's FANTASY not science fiction." has no merit for the examples you listed.

      Starwars -- space travel, life on other planets, robots with sophisticated AI (all science fiction)
      WALL-E -- robots with sophisticated AI, life aboard a space ship, ecological disaster due to human pollution (ditto)
      The Thing -- intelligent alien life (ditto)
      Back to the Future -- time travel with paradoxes, ripple effects, etc., hoverboards, flying cars, fusion powered vehicles, etc. etc.
      The Iron Giant -- giant alien robot

      If this were the 1800's, you'd probably complain the works of Jules Verne weren't sci-fi either.

    2. Re:It's a Fantasy movie not Scifi by allauthors · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just because you have personal definitions which you can articulate well, does not mean the rest of the world has to use them as well. You are both linguistically and historically inaccurate in your definitions. Just a few points...

      1. SciFi as a term has historically been used almost exclusively to describe science fantasy (Movies, Pulp Magazines, etc. which claim a science cause for some plot devices but which are fundamentally not in line with any known scientific principles). Lovers of Science Fiction have often complained when the term SciFi was applied to "Hard" or "Semi-hard" science fiction, because they didn't want "real" science fiction associated with "scifi".

      2. Science Fiction tends to differ from sci-fi, not in the "number of breaches" that are allowed (Your artificial decision that it must be exactly two is so laughable that it's hard to even address this point with a straight face), but in that (and this is not a definition but merely anecdotal evidence) it is A) Fully internally consistent (where many [perhaps even most] sci-fi works are not) and B) It takes the time to give a plausible (not realistic not necessarily extrapolated from known science; but plausible in the context of the work) explanation for any and all differences from science as we know it. This explanation may be cursory ("The principles which enabled the creation of the first star drive were now a common gradeschool subject") and sidereal to the primary plot, or it may be extensive and integral to the plot.

      3. You are right on the money with your definition of Hard Science Fiction (There's no such thing as hard "SciFi" as per my historical note above) but it's still your definition not "THE" definition and I could probably give one that is a better fit.

      Again I am not claiming to be definitive, but if my thoughts above were taken as definitive they would be both more precise and more accurate than your ludicrous personal definitions.

  4. Tron: Betrayal by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a graphic novel titled "Tron: Betrayal" that helps bridge the gap between the two films. I read it before I saw Tron Legacy; I think it helped me enjoy the movie a lot more.

    The graphic novel goes into more depth about Flynn being split between his responsibilities in the real world and in the computer world, his creation of Clu to help him achieve a perfect society in the computer world, and Clu's frustration at Flynn's increasing absence. Eventually Clu decides to take a more active role in realizing the perfection he believes Flynn wants. This makes him more of a sympathetic villain; instead of just being a generic "bad guy", he is genuinely trying to do what he sees as right and he resents Flynn for having a problem with it.

    The graphic novel also goes into more of an explanation of the "Isos". In the novel they're interesting; I felt disappointed that the movie does away with them quickly and plays the whole "last of your kind" card.

    Ten bucks from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tron-Betrayal-Jai-Nitz/dp/142313463X