I liked Primer. It's not exactly "science," since it's about time travel, but the portrayal of engineering culture was spot-on, and it demonstrated how smart people live and work and achieve in the real world (rather than some rarefied academic/government fantasy-land where they don't have to worry about anything except how to get the Earth's core spinning again).
And Raiders of the Lost Ark was great for demonstrating how a guy who teaches boring history lectures by day doesn't have to be a boring, do-nothing guy on the weekends.
I think a lot of kids would still be willing to do science even for a lousy salary. What turns off many of them is the prospect of doing mind-numbing rote work in an atmosphere of utter bureaucratic tedium, where their peers from school make far more money than they do, get far more respect from others (even though they're doing work that is arguably less important), and don't have to wrestle with a lifetime of maintaining their own self-esteem in spite of it all.
I was never much inspired to be a scientist by anything I saw in the movies; not really. Science did seem like interesting, worthwhile work, though. Then I found out how different being a real scientist was from being a movie scientist, and I wondered why I ever even considered it.
The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.
Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.
When I learned that most of the so-called apps that people have on their iPhones are actually purpose-built clients designed to access a single Web site each, that's when I started to agree with the folks at Research in Motion: this whole "apps" craze is a fad.
That's a load of horseshit. I was working at a 7-Eleven, yes. It was shitty hours for shitty pay. On the other hand, they respected me, a 17-year-old kid at the time; they gave me some responsibility and some work experience; and they paid me promptly every two weeks. Then again, it was shitty hours for shitty pay. But you know what? I'm not a fucking thief.
That's a statistic that I made up. At the particular 7-Eleven store I mention, the real figure was actually 10 out of 10. And if I want to rely strictly on my own experience, I'm not sure I'm aware of any cases in all my history of working retail where money was taken from a store where the culprit wasn't an employee. That includes cases where an employee and his friends staged a fake robbery for the cameras.
I'm talking cash money now. Merchandise? Sure. People steal merchandise all the time. But cameras don't usually catch people stealing merchandise. Cameras catch employees taking money from the till.
Maybe there's something to this thing about treating employees decently?
Quit jerking yourself off. My boss at this particular 7-Eleven was a great guy. I'm really sad that he's dead of cancer now. He was suffering from cancer the entire time I worked there, and I pulled many a double shift when some asshole failed to show up for work, because I sure as hell wasn't calling this poor guy up in the middle of the night to close the shop because my relief hadn't shown up. If he had any fault, I reckon it was hiring the wrong people -- because the clowns he put his faith in stole from him left and right. I tried to warn him, others tried to warn him, but if you're of a certain generation, I guess, you tend to trust people you shouldn't.
Seriously? So a guy is on the ground and the cop is beating him, and beating him, and beating him, and nowhere is the suspect seen trying to resist except to cover his head with his arms so he won't be knocked unconscious, you're going to accept the defense that it's OK because we just happened to miss the part where the guy was resisting arrest? How long does a police officer have to beat a suspect before they're considered to be subdued? The argument doesn't even have to me "I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong" -- if I was on a jury watching the videotape, I would convict a police officer for beating a guy for twelve minutes even if I knew the guy had committed a crime.
And let's not kid ourselves; the reason you have cameras on store clerks is because store clerks steal. There's this stereotype that convenience stores are always getting robbed. Trust me, though, when I worked at a 7-Eleven as a kid, the camera wasn't pointed straight down at the register because that's where they thought I would be standing when I was robbed at gunpoint. The cameras are there for theft prevention, and nine times out of then the thief is an employee.
So if it's OK to use cameras to prevent store clerks from committing crimes (or document them), why is it not OK to use cameras to prevent police officers from committing crimes (or document them)? Not only do police officers sometimes commit pretty heinous crimes, including robbery and battery, but I would argue that just about any crime committed by a police officer is more serious than one committed by a store clerk, both because of the abuse of authority and the breakdown of societal values that inevitably occurs as a result.
I believe the key to recording the Police is never to let Andy Summers solo for more than one measure. All the musicians went a little wild with the improvisations on the recent reunion tours and I think the songs suffered for the lack of restraint.
Re:The writing was idiotic (Spoilers?)
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, well, now that you mention it that stuff is pretty stupid. But both Star Wars and Star Trek at least manage to be unique fantasy visions and have some sort of internal consistency. Tron Legacy doesn't have any of that. Imagine if you changed Flynn's name to Zarkov, Clu's name to Ming, Quorra's name to Dale Arden, and Sam's name to Flash Gordon. And then you changed the title of the movie to Flash Gordon, too. How would the movie be any different?
The whole premise of Tron is that everything takes place inside a computer, and so everything that happens has some sort of analog (weak though it may be) to the functioning of a computer. Tron Legacy ignores all that, so what is the point? Am I really expected to care that the QIOUQOI has to save the QYUQYUI from being destroyed by the IQUYIUQ, and the only thing that can save the day is VMWNB? That's not a movie, it's a two-hour ping pong tournament.
Re:I loved the original, but..
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
So for the decades that Flynn was in the grid, he aged. But for each year it was like ages in the grid.
No it wasn't... he was the exact same age he would have been in the real world, while -- as you point out -- Clu didn't age. Why?
And we're all computer people here. Why do people keep saying a human inside a computer is different than a program inside a computer? All data, once it gets inside a computer, on the physical level, is identical. Are you saying the "new" Grid that Flynn created is so advanced that it has complex aging algorithms to make you age at exactly the same rate as you would in the real world, but only if you're a User and not if you're a program? What would be the purpose of that? Wouldn't anybody's first inclination, once he realized he could digitize himself into a computer world, be to make himself immortal within that world? That seems pretty human to me.
Re:Hunger was explained in first Tron
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I remember the little pool, where every time they drank out of it their "circuits" glowed. But none of that happened in Tron Legacy, even though they certainly did seem to like their blue cocktails. As far as I could tell they were just drinks.
Re:I loved the original, but..
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Well, how would I know how it works? None of it makes any sense. The sad part is, as little sense as the original Tron made, this movie makes even less sense, and it manages to be less fun at the same time.
i think too many people were looking for Homework, when they should have been looking for Tron:Legacy OST.
Well, maybe, or maybe it was just "meh." I think if you're not a particular Daft Punk fan this soundtrack holds up well to some of Hans Zimmer's work, but Hans Zimmer is by no means one of history's great soundtrack composers. I like listening to the OST as an album OK, but in the movie I thought it was a little heavy-handed. Too many scenes were really heavy on the score when there wasn't really anything dramatic going on -- Sam walking into a room, or whatever.
Re:Lots of that made sense
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Flynn said it was Tron. Out loud. The very phrase "I fight for the users" is of course Tron's catchline. He used two discs just like in the flashback. I don't think they could have made it more clear without it being really annoying.
Yeah yeah yeah, I got that part. I said I got that part. It's the Good Guy Egg Timer part that's lame, lazy writing. But I guess you're saying they pulled a variant of the old "Kirk is the creator" routine to short-circuit him, which is much better writing.
It's called an implied motive.. and it's fair if it makes sense.
OK, so let me get this straight. Zeus (actually, I think it's spelled Zuse) was helping the ISOs -- who are all dead. But he was caught by Clu, presumably before Clu killed all the ISOs, but Clu didn't kill the guy who was helping the ISOs because now that the ISOs are all dead, the guy who was helping the ISOs can be really useful as a double agent. And so Zuse was told he had to report everything back to Clu. And he's totally cool with that, because it means he gets to run a nightclub (because, again, computer programs need to be entertained in nightclubs now). And that's why he dances around with a big sneer on his face, laughing like "Die, die, everybody die" when the evil guys come in and the big fight starts -- because, you know, he's realized that the whole "helping the ISOs" thing was pretty overrated, especially now that they're all dead and he owns a nightclub. Is that about right? I guess he really does like to "keep up the mystery of Zuse," as you say -- because his motivation sure was a fucking mystery to me.
How can I argue points when you seem to have missed half the dialog?
How can I be expected to listen to the dialog when it seemed to have been written by a six-year-old?
I get it: You love this movie, and you want to keep loving it. Feel free. Myself, I couldn't wait for it to be over and I do not, unfortunately, plan to revisit it to catch all the scintillating, intelligent dialogue that I missed the first time.
Re:Lots of that made sense
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Why would they care? The programs job is to put on game armor. They would have cut off whatever they were wearing.
Why do computer programs wear clothes? Are they shy? In the original, programs didn't shower and get dressed in the morning. That's just what they looked like, and that explanation makes a lot more sense, IMHO.
Again, this is a much improved system which could explain better visual fidelity, and honestly who wouldn't want to look at clouds? Although I have to admit the more realistic physics bothered me, because why even have them?
The latter is more my point. Why the unnecessary complexity in a computerized system? Especially a "perfect" one, which is what Clu supposedly created? Things like friction (where the virtual rubber comes off the virtual tires) just make it harder for you to do what you want done. So why spend the incredible amounts of calculation necessary to burden your car tires with friction all the time, or to model the effects of friction that cause ripples in the virtual atmosphere that reproduce the squeaking sound that occurs when a program slides across a glass floor?
Dude, that was [SPOILER], from the first movie. He was reprogrammed to be subservient to Clu, but in the end hunting users reverted control to his primary purpose.
I know who it was supposed to be, but is that the explanation they gave in the movie, or are you just making that up? Even if it was explicitly stated, that's still pretty weak -- what, did he have a Good Guy Egg Timer that would revert him to Good Guy mode as soon as time was up? Or was there something special about hunting down the one zillionth Good Guy that made him revert control to his primary purpose, where hunting the first Good Guy wasn't enough to do the trick? Or maybe it was hunting Flynn that turned him back into a Good Guy? But if that was the case, then Flynn sure was a jerk for hanging out in his little Zen cave all these years when he could have just waved his hand and turned [SPOILER] back into a Good Guy.
That made plenty of sense to me in the context of earlier events. He was helping the ISO's, and was caught be Clu. He was allowed to live on the condition that he reported everything back to Clu and kept in contact with the resistance. The flamboyant thing was just a disquise to keep too many people from pestering him and keep alive the mystery of Zeus.
Again, I think you're making that up. No fair writing the movie for the screenwriters after the fact.
The whole AI spontaneously forming from nothing?????!?!?!? That was not important at all?????
What AI? I didn't hear anything about any AI? I heard something about "isomorphic algorithms." And if there was an AI, what does that have to do with the share price of ENCOM Inc. that it would make Sam decide he wants to be a corporate exec now instead of a punk kid? If anything, you'd think it would make him want to go back to Caltech and finish with a doctorate in computer science, not work for some shit software company. If computers are full of AI all of a sudden, you'd figure the software market is pretty much over with, so running a software company would be a pretty bunk deal. On the other hand, if he wants ENCOM to be the world's premier manufacturer of isomorphic-algorithm-people, doesn't that make him sort of a power-mad totalitarian slave master himself? If these programs are so perfect, don't they have rights? And if they're more perfect than people, which is what's sort of implied, won't they inevitably supplant humans on Earth by forces of natural selection? So Sam is responsible for the extermination of the human species? Am I extrapolating too far? Or was the whole idea just not very well thought out?
Ok, that certainly requires a bit of suspension, but given that we accept it can re-integrate a human from the dust that was left after a full laser scan, ther
All the IMAX 3D movies I've been to have used polarized glasses. I don't think I've ever been to a movie that uses the shutter system; I've only read about it.
What the hell do you need color in the movie if it's not distracting you? Any movie that doesn't make use of neon yellow, bilious green, aggressive pink and similar colors should be made in black and white!
If I had to wear special glasses to see the color on the screen, I might agree with you. I've seen plenty of brilliant movies in black and white.
No, it's nothing like that. I don't need to wear headphones to listen to music that was recorded in stereo. I can even be deaf in one ear and still enjoy it. I cannot go to a theater and enjoy a movie sans glasses if it's only projected in 3D. I have to sit there and wear the glasses, even if I only have one eye and can't see the illusion anyway.
And that's all it is anyway -- an illusion. It doesn't look like real life, no matter how much "depth" they put into the picture. If you're going to turn down the illusion so that it's so subtle you can barely perceive it, why go through the trouble at all?
(Answer: Because it's hard to bootleg a movie that's projected in 3D and the market has proven that you can charge $15 per head for a 3D movie, which is more than you can charge for a regular one.)
And if you, davev2.0, have in fact stopped beating your wife, why won't you fly to Sweden to answer questions from Swedish police about accusations that you beat your wife in Sweden once?
Re:I loved the original, but..
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
If you can buy that premise at all you should be able to accept that he could age.
Well, not really. Wasn't there an episode of one of the newer Star Trek series where one of the cast of the original series had been stuck in a transporter beam for a few decades? Why would you age, physically, when you've been digitized?
And Sam didn't seem bothered by the idea that Flynn wouldn't age, because when he met Clu he immediately recognized him as his father and never mentioned the fact that he hadn't aged a day.
Nah, it was just lazy, stupid writing. If you can't admit that, I guess you'll probably enjoy rewatching this movie many times.
Re:The writing was idiotic (Spoilers?)
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
There's such a thing a suspension of disbelief, and then there are things that just make no sense.
The original Tron was about a guy who gets sucked into a simulated world inside a computer. A lot of things about that concept test credulity. But the new movie doesn't even try -- they might as well have called it Flash Gordon; it would have been the same movie.
And if it really had been a non-stop action blockbuster from beginning to end, I probably wouldn't have had time to think about all the plot holes and incomprehensible writing -- but it wasn't. There were a few action sequences but they were pretty tame, and you never got the impression that the heroes were in any kind of danger whatsoever. The rest of the time was spent on interminably boring exposition (boring because it obviously made no sense) and meticulously rendered imagery that served no plot at all.
You realize CLU was supposed to be a CG version of Bridges, right? He's SUPPOSED to not look 100% perfectly real.
Your statement might be insightful but for two things:
None of the other computer programs look like CG generated people; they just look like regular people.
They use the CG Jeff Bridges in an early flashback sequence that takes place in the real world.
The latter was probably their big mistake, because everybody is left thinking there's something not quite right about CG Jeff Bridges before they ever see CLU.
Of course there will be a sequel. If it makes money for Disney, there will be a sequel. And what's insulting is how much stuff was put into this movie obviously only to cater to a sequel. Cillian Murphy had what amounted to an uncredited cameo as the son of the main villain from the original movie. You'd think his character might be important to the plot, but... not this time. Ditto the title character from the original movie... not this time. And a sequel doesn't even depend on Jeff Bridges' participation, because they can just use the digital version. It's kind of sickening.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Star Wars started at nothing -- no sequels, no episode number.
I liked Primer . It's not exactly "science," since it's about time travel, but the portrayal of engineering culture was spot-on, and it demonstrated how smart people live and work and achieve in the real world (rather than some rarefied academic/government fantasy-land where they don't have to worry about anything except how to get the Earth's core spinning again).
And Raiders of the Lost Ark was great for demonstrating how a guy who teaches boring history lectures by day doesn't have to be a boring, do-nothing guy on the weekends.
I think a lot of kids would still be willing to do science even for a lousy salary. What turns off many of them is the prospect of doing mind-numbing rote work in an atmosphere of utter bureaucratic tedium, where their peers from school make far more money than they do, get far more respect from others (even though they're doing work that is arguably less important), and don't have to wrestle with a lifetime of maintaining their own self-esteem in spite of it all.
I was never much inspired to be a scientist by anything I saw in the movies; not really. Science did seem like interesting, worthwhile work, though. Then I found out how different being a real scientist was from being a movie scientist, and I wondered why I ever even considered it.
That's a fair point, I guess.
The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.
Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.
When I learned that most of the so-called apps that people have on their iPhones are actually purpose-built clients designed to access a single Web site each, that's when I started to agree with the folks at Research in Motion: this whole "apps" craze is a fad.
That's a load of horseshit. I was working at a 7-Eleven, yes. It was shitty hours for shitty pay. On the other hand, they respected me, a 17-year-old kid at the time; they gave me some responsibility and some work experience; and they paid me promptly every two weeks. Then again, it was shitty hours for shitty pay. But you know what? I'm not a fucking thief.
9 out of 10? Wow, is that a real statistic?
That's a statistic that I made up. At the particular 7-Eleven store I mention, the real figure was actually 10 out of 10. And if I want to rely strictly on my own experience, I'm not sure I'm aware of any cases in all my history of working retail where money was taken from a store where the culprit wasn't an employee. That includes cases where an employee and his friends staged a fake robbery for the cameras.
I'm talking cash money now. Merchandise? Sure. People steal merchandise all the time. But cameras don't usually catch people stealing merchandise. Cameras catch employees taking money from the till.
Maybe there's something to this thing about treating employees decently?
Quit jerking yourself off. My boss at this particular 7-Eleven was a great guy. I'm really sad that he's dead of cancer now. He was suffering from cancer the entire time I worked there, and I pulled many a double shift when some asshole failed to show up for work, because I sure as hell wasn't calling this poor guy up in the middle of the night to close the shop because my relief hadn't shown up. If he had any fault, I reckon it was hiring the wrong people -- because the clowns he put his faith in stole from him left and right. I tried to warn him, others tried to warn him, but if you're of a certain generation, I guess, you tend to trust people you shouldn't.
Seriously? So a guy is on the ground and the cop is beating him, and beating him, and beating him, and nowhere is the suspect seen trying to resist except to cover his head with his arms so he won't be knocked unconscious, you're going to accept the defense that it's OK because we just happened to miss the part where the guy was resisting arrest? How long does a police officer have to beat a suspect before they're considered to be subdued? The argument doesn't even have to me "I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong" -- if I was on a jury watching the videotape, I would convict a police officer for beating a guy for twelve minutes even if I knew the guy had committed a crime.
And let's not kid ourselves; the reason you have cameras on store clerks is because store clerks steal. There's this stereotype that convenience stores are always getting robbed. Trust me, though, when I worked at a 7-Eleven as a kid, the camera wasn't pointed straight down at the register because that's where they thought I would be standing when I was robbed at gunpoint. The cameras are there for theft prevention, and nine times out of then the thief is an employee.
So if it's OK to use cameras to prevent store clerks from committing crimes (or document them), why is it not OK to use cameras to prevent police officers from committing crimes (or document them)? Not only do police officers sometimes commit pretty heinous crimes, including robbery and battery, but I would argue that just about any crime committed by a police officer is more serious than one committed by a store clerk, both because of the abuse of authority and the breakdown of societal values that inevitably occurs as a result.
So it's the old "sure I kept clubbing him, but you gotta believe me, he resisted arrest twelve minutes before the camera started rolling" defense, eh?
I believe the key to recording the Police is never to let Andy Summers solo for more than one measure. All the musicians went a little wild with the improvisations on the recent reunion tours and I think the songs suffered for the lack of restraint.
Yeah, well, now that you mention it that stuff is pretty stupid. But both Star Wars and Star Trek at least manage to be unique fantasy visions and have some sort of internal consistency. Tron Legacy doesn't have any of that. Imagine if you changed Flynn's name to Zarkov, Clu's name to Ming, Quorra's name to Dale Arden, and Sam's name to Flash Gordon. And then you changed the title of the movie to Flash Gordon, too. How would the movie be any different?
The whole premise of Tron is that everything takes place inside a computer, and so everything that happens has some sort of analog (weak though it may be) to the functioning of a computer. Tron Legacy ignores all that, so what is the point? Am I really expected to care that the QIOUQOI has to save the QYUQYUI from being destroyed by the IQUYIUQ, and the only thing that can save the day is VMWNB? That's not a movie, it's a two-hour ping pong tournament.
So for the decades that Flynn was in the grid, he aged. But for each year it was like ages in the grid.
No it wasn't... he was the exact same age he would have been in the real world, while -- as you point out -- Clu didn't age. Why?
And we're all computer people here. Why do people keep saying a human inside a computer is different than a program inside a computer? All data, once it gets inside a computer, on the physical level, is identical. Are you saying the "new" Grid that Flynn created is so advanced that it has complex aging algorithms to make you age at exactly the same rate as you would in the real world, but only if you're a User and not if you're a program? What would be the purpose of that? Wouldn't anybody's first inclination, once he realized he could digitize himself into a computer world, be to make himself immortal within that world? That seems pretty human to me.
Yeah, I remember the little pool, where every time they drank out of it their "circuits" glowed. But none of that happened in Tron Legacy, even though they certainly did seem to like their blue cocktails. As far as I could tell they were just drinks.
Well, how would I know how it works? None of it makes any sense. The sad part is, as little sense as the original Tron made, this movie makes even less sense, and it manages to be less fun at the same time.
i think too many people were looking for Homework, when they should have been looking for Tron:Legacy OST.
Well, maybe, or maybe it was just "meh." I think if you're not a particular Daft Punk fan this soundtrack holds up well to some of Hans Zimmer's work, but Hans Zimmer is by no means one of history's great soundtrack composers. I like listening to the OST as an album OK, but in the movie I thought it was a little heavy-handed. Too many scenes were really heavy on the score when there wasn't really anything dramatic going on -- Sam walking into a room, or whatever.
Flynn said it was Tron. Out loud. The very phrase "I fight for the users" is of course Tron's catchline. He used two discs just like in the flashback. I don't think they could have made it more clear without it being really annoying.
Yeah yeah yeah, I got that part. I said I got that part. It's the Good Guy Egg Timer part that's lame, lazy writing. But I guess you're saying they pulled a variant of the old "Kirk is the creator" routine to short-circuit him, which is much better writing.
It's called an implied motive.. and it's fair if it makes sense.
OK, so let me get this straight. Zeus (actually, I think it's spelled Zuse) was helping the ISOs -- who are all dead. But he was caught by Clu, presumably before Clu killed all the ISOs, but Clu didn't kill the guy who was helping the ISOs because now that the ISOs are all dead, the guy who was helping the ISOs can be really useful as a double agent. And so Zuse was told he had to report everything back to Clu. And he's totally cool with that, because it means he gets to run a nightclub (because, again, computer programs need to be entertained in nightclubs now). And that's why he dances around with a big sneer on his face, laughing like "Die, die, everybody die" when the evil guys come in and the big fight starts -- because, you know, he's realized that the whole "helping the ISOs" thing was pretty overrated, especially now that they're all dead and he owns a nightclub. Is that about right? I guess he really does like to "keep up the mystery of Zuse," as you say -- because his motivation sure was a fucking mystery to me.
How can I argue points when you seem to have missed half the dialog?
How can I be expected to listen to the dialog when it seemed to have been written by a six-year-old?
I get it: You love this movie, and you want to keep loving it. Feel free. Myself, I couldn't wait for it to be over and I do not, unfortunately, plan to revisit it to catch all the scintillating, intelligent dialogue that I missed the first time.
Why would they care? The programs job is to put on game armor. They would have cut off whatever they were wearing.
Why do computer programs wear clothes? Are they shy? In the original, programs didn't shower and get dressed in the morning. That's just what they looked like, and that explanation makes a lot more sense, IMHO.
Again, this is a much improved system which could explain better visual fidelity, and honestly who wouldn't want to look at clouds? Although I have to admit the more realistic physics bothered me, because why even have them?
The latter is more my point. Why the unnecessary complexity in a computerized system? Especially a "perfect" one, which is what Clu supposedly created? Things like friction (where the virtual rubber comes off the virtual tires) just make it harder for you to do what you want done. So why spend the incredible amounts of calculation necessary to burden your car tires with friction all the time, or to model the effects of friction that cause ripples in the virtual atmosphere that reproduce the squeaking sound that occurs when a program slides across a glass floor?
Dude, that was [SPOILER], from the first movie. He was reprogrammed to be subservient to Clu, but in the end hunting users reverted control to his primary purpose.
I know who it was supposed to be, but is that the explanation they gave in the movie, or are you just making that up? Even if it was explicitly stated, that's still pretty weak -- what, did he have a Good Guy Egg Timer that would revert him to Good Guy mode as soon as time was up? Or was there something special about hunting down the one zillionth Good Guy that made him revert control to his primary purpose, where hunting the first Good Guy wasn't enough to do the trick? Or maybe it was hunting Flynn that turned him back into a Good Guy? But if that was the case, then Flynn sure was a jerk for hanging out in his little Zen cave all these years when he could have just waved his hand and turned [SPOILER] back into a Good Guy.
That made plenty of sense to me in the context of earlier events. He was helping the ISO's, and was caught be Clu. He was allowed to live on the condition that he reported everything back to Clu and kept in contact with the resistance. The flamboyant thing was just a disquise to keep too many people from pestering him and keep alive the mystery of Zeus.
Again, I think you're making that up. No fair writing the movie for the screenwriters after the fact.
The whole AI spontaneously forming from nothing?????!?!?!? That was not important at all?????
What AI? I didn't hear anything about any AI? I heard something about "isomorphic algorithms." And if there was an AI, what does that have to do with the share price of ENCOM Inc. that it would make Sam decide he wants to be a corporate exec now instead of a punk kid? If anything, you'd think it would make him want to go back to Caltech and finish with a doctorate in computer science, not work for some shit software company. If computers are full of AI all of a sudden, you'd figure the software market is pretty much over with, so running a software company would be a pretty bunk deal. On the other hand, if he wants ENCOM to be the world's premier manufacturer of isomorphic-algorithm-people, doesn't that make him sort of a power-mad totalitarian slave master himself? If these programs are so perfect, don't they have rights? And if they're more perfect than people, which is what's sort of implied, won't they inevitably supplant humans on Earth by forces of natural selection? So Sam is responsible for the extermination of the human species? Am I extrapolating too far? Or was the whole idea just not very well thought out?
Ok, that certainly requires a bit of suspension, but given that we accept it can re-integrate a human from the dust that was left after a full laser scan, ther
All the IMAX 3D movies I've been to have used polarized glasses. I don't think I've ever been to a movie that uses the shutter system; I've only read about it.
What the hell do you need color in the movie if it's not distracting you? Any movie that doesn't make use of neon yellow, bilious green, aggressive pink and similar colors should be made in black and white!
If I had to wear special glasses to see the color on the screen, I might agree with you. I've seen plenty of brilliant movies in black and white.
No, it's nothing like that. I don't need to wear headphones to listen to music that was recorded in stereo. I can even be deaf in one ear and still enjoy it. I cannot go to a theater and enjoy a movie sans glasses if it's only projected in 3D. I have to sit there and wear the glasses, even if I only have one eye and can't see the illusion anyway.
And that's all it is anyway -- an illusion. It doesn't look like real life, no matter how much "depth" they put into the picture. If you're going to turn down the illusion so that it's so subtle you can barely perceive it, why go through the trouble at all?
(Answer: Because it's hard to bootleg a movie that's projected in 3D and the market has proven that you can charge $15 per head for a 3D movie, which is more than you can charge for a regular one.)
And if you, davev2.0, have in fact stopped beating your wife, why won't you fly to Sweden to answer questions from Swedish police about accusations that you beat your wife in Sweden once?
If you can buy that premise at all you should be able to accept that he could age.
Well, not really. Wasn't there an episode of one of the newer Star Trek series where one of the cast of the original series had been stuck in a transporter beam for a few decades? Why would you age, physically, when you've been digitized?
And Sam didn't seem bothered by the idea that Flynn wouldn't age, because when he met Clu he immediately recognized him as his father and never mentioned the fact that he hadn't aged a day.
Nah, it was just lazy, stupid writing. If you can't admit that, I guess you'll probably enjoy rewatching this movie many times.
There's such a thing a suspension of disbelief, and then there are things that just make no sense.
The original Tron was about a guy who gets sucked into a simulated world inside a computer. A lot of things about that concept test credulity. But the new movie doesn't even try -- they might as well have called it Flash Gordon; it would have been the same movie.
And if it really had been a non-stop action blockbuster from beginning to end, I probably wouldn't have had time to think about all the plot holes and incomprehensible writing -- but it wasn't. There were a few action sequences but they were pretty tame, and you never got the impression that the heroes were in any kind of danger whatsoever. The rest of the time was spent on interminably boring exposition (boring because it obviously made no sense) and meticulously rendered imagery that served no plot at all.
You realize CLU was supposed to be a CG version of Bridges, right? He's SUPPOSED to not look 100% perfectly real.
Your statement might be insightful but for two things:
The latter was probably their big mistake, because everybody is left thinking there's something not quite right about CG Jeff Bridges before they ever see CLU.
Of course there will be a sequel. If it makes money for Disney, there will be a sequel. And what's insulting is how much stuff was put into this movie obviously only to cater to a sequel. Cillian Murphy had what amounted to an uncredited cameo as the son of the main villain from the original movie. You'd think his character might be important to the plot, but... not this time. Ditto the title character from the original movie... not this time. And a sequel doesn't even depend on Jeff Bridges' participation, because they can just use the digital version. It's kind of sickening.