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?"
"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?"
I'm in the group of people who just recently saw the first movie just yesterday, in fact. I was born the year after the original was released so was too young to get to see it early on. I also grew up with computers and scifi/fantasy and can say that I knew what Tron was going in. It was a move from the early 80's. It was groundbreaking for the time. I did feel it was a bit cheesy, but I blame that more on Disney than anything else. If you expect something amazing and epiphany-making, you're going to get let down. If you expect it for what it was at the time, you'll enjoy the hour-and-a-half you spend watching it.
-SaNo
The reviews I've seen have tried (and failed) to cast C.L.U. as a clueless (pun intended) bad guy. But he wasn't a bad guy, he was Flynn's idealism wrapped up in a program. The movie is more about idealism and the folly of trying to attain perfection than it is about any sort of struggle between good and evil.
It doesn't matter how old you are, or how you felt about the original movie. This one apparently has good graphics with a poor plot. Both reviews quoted in TFA were basically negative on the movie. Ebert thumbed his up to three by liking the visuals, but he said several times in his short piece that the movie is essentially plotless. The following quotes are all from his review:
I'm giving this more attention than the movie does, which is just as well. Isaac Asimov would have attempted some kind of scientific speculation on how this might all be possible, but "Tron" is more action-oriented.
"Tron: Legacy," a sequel made 28 years after the original but with the same actor, is true to the first film: It also can't be understood, but looks great.
It may not have legs, because its appeal is too one-dimensional for an audience much beyond immediate responders. When "2001" was in theaters, there were fans who got stoned and sneaked in during the intermission for the sound-and-light trip. I hesitate to suggest that for "Tron: Legacy," but the plot won't suffer.
None of those are positive statements with respect to the plot.
CG is fine for avoiding expensive trips to filming locations in the remotest corners of the globe, or for rendering places that aren't there. But it's in no way a supplement to a plot. Transformers, 2012, Doom, etc., all proved that flashy visuals can turn a profit, but they can't turn suck into a movie worth watching.
John
I was in my 20's when the first Tron was released. Back then, computers were magical mysterious things. Today, your cell phone probably has more computing power than the computers used on the original Tron and amazing CGI is everywhere. Any kid with a cheap computer can do stuff that rivals the best movie effects of 30 years ago.. As a result, people aren't as impressed by fancy computer graphics as they used to be, and they notice that "hey, this story line and acting is pretty lame.
No, not enough imagination used.
My movie is only a failure because you are all too simple minded and stupid to appreciate the true genius of my creation. If the special effects aren't enough for you, then you are a generation of special-effects-spoiled brats with no patience. If the plot isn't good enough for you, it's because you're unimaginative. And you've all clearly grown out of your ability to fantasize and imagine great technological and scientific stories, because you didn't like the absurd plot in my movie that had nearly nothing to do with technology. I mean, nobody watches science fiction movies or shows anymore and there certainly haven't been an abundance of successful movies, shows, and books in the last decade that prove me wrong.
Because the one thing I demand in a story about people being sucked into a computer where "programs" control each other and fight each other and talk with each other with human avatars is a realistic bash prompt.
I think the people that saw the original Tron at the time remember it as a much better movie than it really was. You're spot on when you say the original Tron heavily relied on special effects at the expense of story. While we all decry that sort of thing as laziness and lack of imagination these days, when we think back to that original movie we think of how cool it looked to us at the time, and gloss over the bad parts (like the plot and the pacing). The only imagination required to appreciate the new Tron is the imagination it takes to believe your nostalgic view of the original is an accurate measure of the quality of the film.
Disney tried to basically do the same thing with this movie, relying heavily on special effects. Unfortunately for them, and hopefully fortunately for the future of movie making, the movie-watching public may finally be getting to the point where cutting-edge technology is not enough to save bad movies. Maybe we'll finally get to where the big blockbuster movies actually have to have a coherent plot instead of relying purely on whiz-bang graphics. Of course, believing in such a future may take more imagination (or self-delusion) than believing either Tron movie is any good.
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
You hit the nail on the head with the "magical mysterious" description of computers. I was 10 when Tron came out, and I had just gotten my first home computer - a TI-99/4A. This was the era in which computers finally began to make inroads to the home, and the C64, TI-99/4A and Atari 800 could be found set up and running in every Sears and KMart across America. Those that could fire up one of those computers (which all started out in the BASIC command environment) and could type "10 PRINT "DAN WAS HERE"; 20 GOTO 10 were demigods capable of working voodoo in this newfangled technological world. Everyone knew computers were the future, and that each home should probably have one, albeit for reasons they couldn't quite pin down (this might save me 10 minutes a month balancing my checkbook!).
For those of us that did know computers, the "ENCOM" mainframe in which the Tron world unfolded was hardware of unfathomable complexity, power and scale. Our home computers were puny things, that could only do one thing at a time and were totally stand-alone. Who knew what could happen in hardware of that magnitude! The sky's the limit! Of course now we all know that the only difference between a C64 and the most powerful supercomputer in the world is how fast it can calculate, and the convenience of accessing memory (swapping out billions of 5.25" discs by hand over the course of billions of years of computing doesn't sound very fun). The whole "Turing complete" deal sort of takes away the magic attributed to raw scale and complexity of computing devices.
But my point in running my mouth endlessly is to say that when Tron came out, computing was a new frontier, and all it took was to throw in a few "factually correct" constructs (like the Bit, for example) to totally reel kids like me in hook line and sinker. Just like Star Wars, which elicited awe and astonishment in those of us that saw visuals on the big screen the likes of which had never been seen before, it was a movie with irreproducible impact and significance grounded firmly in the very era of which it was a product. The "story" Tron would never be written in today's world - it is simply too naive, metaphorical and anthropomorphic for today's highly advanced technological world.
Better known as 318230.
Did Flynn recognize Tron because he was upside down or something?
Tron had two discs.
the dialog rivals Attack of the Clones
Much of the plot seemed lifted from Star Wars.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
On the scale of 0 through 10, I'd give this movie a 10 for visuals, a 10 for music and sound effects, a 10 on costumes, a 4.5 on story and about a 3 on heart.
Those of us with some love for the original movie are somewhat more inclined to let the lack of heart slide, or to view it through nostalgia-tinted eyes and not think about it too much.
One of the basic problems is that I didn't like most of the main characters. I found it hard to empathize with Sam Flynn; he was incredibly privileged yet pointlessly emo. (By the end of the movie, he has set aside his emo-ness but I'm not sure quite why, probably because I don't understand why he was so emo to start with.) Kevin Flynn was more of the actual protagonist than Sam, but he spent much of the movie doing nothing and saying that doing nothing was the right thing to do; and the scene where he is reunited with his son didn't have the emotional impact it deserved. (From Kevin Flynn's point of view, he hadn't seen his son in centuries at least, centuries where it must have eaten at him to wonder what was happening in the real world.) CLU was an unsatisfying villain, especially if you compare him to Sark and MCP from the original. The only character I actually liked was Quorra.
It would have helped if we could have seen more emotion. Did Sam believe his father had run away and abandoned him? That would explain the emo, but we didn't get a scene that suggested it. Did Kevin feel hatred for CLU, for the horrible things CLU had done? Did he feel anguish, that something he created had gone so far wrong? He talked about the situation like some sort of chess game: "Any move we make helps him win" or something like that.
Despite the flaws, I'm glad I saw it, and I actually hope they will make another one right away. I wish they would get a really good script for the next one, one with a bit more heart. All this needed was a better script and it could have been a great movie instead of just a good one.
P.S. As a geek, I care about continuity, and there were egregious continuity breaks with the original. Programs in the original just wanted to drink some electricity, but now they have actual food and drink. In the original, Kevin Flynn had powers because he was a user; in this movie, Sam Flynn didn't seem to have any user powers, and Kevin Flynn had rather limited powers for someone who had had centuries to refine them. (I wanted to see the two of them fighting together like a pair of Jedi.) Did I want to see bits? *+YES+* Did the movie have any? *-NO-* And it would have been great to see Cindy Morgan in at least a cameo. (I wish the plot line had said that Sam had been adopted by Alan and Lora after Kevin disappeared!)
The costumes look totally different, but I don't count that as a continuity violation; it was UNIX now instead of an IBM mainframe, so of course all the programs were cooler-looking.
P.P.S. There were some cool plot ideas in the TRON 2.0 video game, and I would like to see those ideas used in future movies. What if shadowy government agencies got the TRON laser technology, and started sending agents into the Internet to spy on computers, sabotage systems, or even assassinate people? What if data errors during the laser digitizing process caused people to go insane or even become mutant-looking monsters in the computer world? How about a scene where someone (say, Alan) is in grave danger in the real world and Sam has to protect him from the computer world, by hacking?
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
as a villain he was cardboard.
He was supposed to be single minded because he was built for a purpose.
But I didn't see him as that cardboard because as we saw at the end, something he really craved was approval for the perfection he had attained.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the people that saw the original Tron at the time remember it as a much better movie than it really was. You're spot on when you say the original Tron heavily relied on special effects at the expense of story. While we all decry that sort of thing as laziness and lack of imagination these days, when we think back to that original movie we think of how cool it looked to us at the time, and gloss over the bad parts (like the plot and the pacing). The only imagination required to appreciate the new Tron is the imagination it takes to believe your nostalgic view of the original is an accurate measure of the quality of the film.
I've never understood why they don't just pay someone to write a good script when they make a movie. I can understand that there would sometimes be process failures when the best efforts of everyone involved yields a shitty product. I can understand when a studio comes out and says "Yeah, we're going to make a McDonalds film, loaded with titty and splosions and shit that tastes good but aren't good for you." Transformers is a formula that works. But if you're actually trying to make a good movie, why not start from a good script? I'm not going to make a steakhouse-quality dinner using stew beef, I need to drop some coin on good ingredients.
You'd think that the script would be the cheapest part of the whole movie. There are tons of starving writers out there with absolutely brilliant ideas. Why are they ignored? It just doesn't make any sense.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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
Tron has those 4 squares on his chest. Took me 3 days after watching it to figure out that's how he knew. That's how bad the writing was.
Um, no. Sorry. I don't want to post any spoilers here, but that was not the clue. I'll give you a hint, though. The number you are looking for is 2, and the audience is made aware of the connection long before Flynn is. I'm not sure how much more obvious it could have been made without preventing it from being a surprise at all.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
"Science Fiction is a Fictitious story based on known Scientific Principles at the time it is published"
That, my friend, is called fiction.
"A Scifi story is allowed 2 major breaches (warp drive, teleporters) of the know laws of science as long as at least one of them has some sort of sketchy device that supposedly mitigates the law (heisenberg compensators.)"
So now you are creating your OWN arbitrary definition of what sci-fi is in order to prop up you non existent argument.
"The only breaches of Scientific law allowed are ones that are thoroughly explained in such a way that even a physicist would say "Well... ok, maybe..." Warpdrive is definitely out of the picture unless the story takes place in another physical universe."
Bring that warp drive isn't 'impossible, this is just another personal arbitrary definition. Useless.
Even by your OWN arbitrary definition Tron qualifies as Sci-Fi: Transporters, and a uniquely built electronic computer system. BAM .
Yo have created a person box for the sole purpose of poo-pooing anything that doesn't allready exist in your limited experiences.
Shame on you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on