A. Lee Martinez was insulted by TRON: Legacy

I saw TRON: Legacy twice, once in 2D, and once in 3D. 3D is wasted on me - I
get lost in the story (even a bad story) and simply don't notice that things
that already have perspective and look three dimensional now has more
3Dness. I tried not to think too hard about TL because I knew it wouldn't
bear up under much scrutiny.

Or any, as it happens.

http://www.aleemartinez.com/wanted-tron/blog/03012011/

> A post or two ago, I mentioned my indifference to *Tron Legacy*.  I ended
> up seeing the film anyway, mostly because there was nothing else that really
> struck me as worth seeing either.  *Tron Legacy *was everything I
> expected.  A lackluster film taking the skin of a previous movie and
> stretching it over a trite, uninspired adventure film.  But as I think about
> it more and more, I think a comparison between *Tron *and *Legacy *might
> be worth doing.  Why not, right?
>
> *Tron* is an infinitely better film.  Even though its computer generated
> world is dated and it isn’t a perfect film, it still has a lot going for
> it.  First of all, *Tron* was the film that dared to say computer
> animation can be used to make a fantasy film.  We take it all for granted at
> this stage, but at the time, this was damn revolutionary.  *Tron *was also
> one of the first mainstream films to even posit the importance of computers
> and how they would shape and influence our lives.  *War Games* came out a
> year earlier, which is also an interesting film for so many reasons, but
> we’ll avoid digression.
>
> Aside from its revolutionary ideas though, *Tron* is actually a
> surprisingly intelligent film.  Especially when you consider that the bulk
> of the film takes place in a computer and that, in essence, its plot hinges
> on programs battling for dominance in a digital fantasyland.  Yet if you
> study the action, you can see that everything in the original film is merely
> a visual representation of various interracting programs.  I don’t know how
> accurate it is, but it certainly is well thought out on an instinctual
> level.
>
> Let’s begin with Tron himself.  A program designed to monitor and secure
> the system, he is the unwilling prisoner of Master Control.  Master Control,
> an artificially intelligent superprogram, has seized absolute power over the
> digital realm.  Unable to destroy Tron, Master Control has instead trapped
> him, forcing Tron to compete in endless gladatorial games.  Tron is forced
> to face incredible odds but is simply too powerful to be defeated.  This
> metaphorical struggle basically amounts to two computer programs struggling
> for dominance with Tron too powerful to be defeated but too weak to do
> anything but survive.
>
> Eventually Tron escapes (with some help from Flynn, a “user” descended from
> above via a bit of technological magic).  Thus Tron begins his pilgrimage to
> the node where he can communicate with his own user.  This is often
> overlooked, but what the film has basically done is taken the simple task of
> receiving instructions and turned it into a holy journey, a sacred thing.
> Considering that Tron is a program who remains strong and determined and
> “faithful” even to the users, beings he has never seen nor encountered but
> simply know exist somewhere, the metaphor is obvious.
>
> When Tron gets his instructions from his user, he embarks on his final
> step, to face and defeat Master Control.  Master Control is the Sauron of
> the digital world, a program that has achieved full sentience and threatens
> all programs in the computer.  Charged with his new orders and a sacred
> weapon (his identity disc) he seeks out and wins, saving the system from its
> oppressive master.  In essence, he allows the computer to become a free
> system, to perform as it was intended to, to fulfill its grand purpose.
>
> Okay, so this is silly if you think about it.  Aside from Flynn, the user
> struggling to free himself, the only thing really at stake in *Tron* is
> the functionality of a computer system.  But if you use your imagination, if
> you look at it the right way, Tron’s journey is a fantastic adventure into
> destiny, faith, and purpose.  As an allegory, I think it works well.  It
> also helps to give the film some kind of logical framework, a foundation
> that makes it work.
>
> Among *Tron Legacy*‘s biggest flaws is that it lacks this foundation.
> Without it, the digital landscape seems to be an excuse to have cool people
> in cool costumes stand around looking cool.  But what is it all about?
> There’s some nonsense about “bringing order”, but what does this even mean?
> We hear how Flynn is some sort of prophet who wants to revolutionize
> everythinga about the world, both digital and physical, but we’re never
> given any proof other than people talking about it.
>
> In the original, programs are forced to participate in death sports in the
> form of video games.  This makes sense in context because its the kind of
> tool that we can pretend a computer might use.  It’s purely metaphorical,
> but it works.  The movie even foreshadows the games by showing them being
> played at an arcade.  Yet in *Legacy* we’re given lightcycles, tanks, and
> those flying space invader type things because, apparently, the virtual
> world is at a dead stop.  Video games haven’t evolved.  The problem is that
> the makers of *Legacy* weren’t inspired by video games, but by *Tron*.
> And so we end up with a film that borrows ideas from the original without
> really knowing what to do with them.  *Legacy* plays like it was made by
> people who had seen a few scenes from *Tron*, read a synopsis, and then,
> with barely a grasp of what the original was about, started designing neon
> costumes.
>
> Even in little ways, the film misses the point.  The identity disc is a
> stand-in for a program’s soul.  It’s a programs primary weapon and also the
> source of everything important about it.  When *Tron* communicates with
> his user, his disc ascends, is modified, and then returned to him.  The
> metaphor of a transformative soul isn’t exactly subtle.  But apparently, the
> makers of *Legacy* missed the point.
>
> So maybe I’m the only one who cares about this or who has given it this
> much thought.  It’s just a movie, right?  And it’s not as if it’s a tragedy
> that a movie that dared so much ended up spawning a film that dares so
> little, that has nothing memorable or interesting going on.  As a
> novelologist and a person who likes to think of himself as at least a little
> bit creative, it’s annoying, even a bit soul crushing, to watch it happen.
>
> Which leads me to my point.  Thanks for sticking around and making it to
> the end, if you’re still reading this.  I am changing my status on *Legacy
> * from *indifferent* to *insulted*.  I’m insulted that they completely
> failed to understand the original.  I’m insulted that they failed, not
> because they dared to emulate a great film, but because they thought it’d be
> cool to try and cash in.  Which is normal, I suppose, but if you’re going to
> try to make a sequel to an obscure film, you might as well take a chance.
>

Of course, Lee could have just saved himself some trouble and made do with
three frames:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/12/22/
[image: It's Got To Come Out]



Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot