They should not be too proud of this technological terror they’ve created.
 
[SDG] It’s more machine than man now, twisted and evil.

It seems like our current technology has allowed movie makers to become lazy.  Many high tech movies now barely have a plot.
 
[SDG] To be fair, the original Tron barely had a plot too.

I agree with a number of Mr. Greydanus’ criticisms of Tron: Legacy’s plot-line, technological imaginings, and denouement, but comparing it to Avatar is a matter of personal taste. I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and Fantasy dork, and I was bored to tears by Cameron’s Fern Gully rip-off. Only the incredible 3D renderings kept me from leaving as I checked my watch every five minutes after the 100-minute mark. Everybody knows the Native Americans were wronged by the Manifest Destiny folks, and while terribly tragic, Cameron’s interplanetary retelling is philosophically uninteresting. The bad guys are one-dimensional.

In contrast, Tron: Legacy does raise interesting philosophical questions that, even though mishandled by the script writers, validly confront the viewer. As we CAN do almost anything virtually, how do we draw the line between the values of our virtual reality and our natural reality? What do we do with addiction to the sway that this world provides? As Catholics, how do we communicate with postmodern technophiles who have lost sight of the value in participating actively in a very imperfect human world, one that modernity has failed to provide answers for on its own? What do we do with our own evil that arises from the pursuit of technology, even when undertaken originally with good motives?

I agree with many of the ideas in this review, but I disagree with its comparison and conclusion. There is much more to the second Tron film than the first. There is incredibly more to glean from this film (and enjoy, from my own perspective) than from Avatar. I tried to watch Avatar a second time and it hurt too badly to get through so I abandoned trying to enjoy it. Tron: Legacy is an imperfect effort that I will enjoy again and again, and whose philosophical underpinnings bear interesting fruit for those of us trying to sort out our identity in a world of digital instant gratification. This film is not for luddites.

David Hallowell
M.A., Philosophy, Boston College
 
[SDG] I appreciate your thoughtful, creative comments. No question, the philosophical questions you raise in conection with Tron: Legacy are much more interesting than anything Cameron proposes in Avatar. The only problem I see with your thesis is that I can’t see how Tron: Legacy is in any way concerned with anything remotely as interesting as the questions you raise. If you simply mean is that the questions that occur to you while you are watching Tron: Legacy are more interesting than the questions that occur to you while you are watching Avatar, then of course I can’t disagree with that, but that’s a standard of limited value in assessing the relative merits of the films.

The original Tron was a great idea that was poorly executed. It was a visually stunning FX treat, but was frankly, quite boring.

The concept of tron and the programs and users, etc. could have been a great world in which to delve into some philosophical questions and arguments, but it never really went there. Somehow I don’t think a company like Disney would ever go there.

I haven’t seen the new Tron, but your description basically sums up what I expected. Disney wanted to make this big fancy omelet, but couldn’t bring themselves to break the eggs.
 
[SDG] Nice!

Actually, I found Tron:Legacy to be quite intelligent and filled with philosophical questions. I think it offers some of the same questions the Matrix sequels tried, but did it better, but in doing it better, was more subtle and more difficult for people to grasp they were being raised.

Think of Tron: Legacy as a continuation of the discussion begun with Frankenstein about the modern Prometheus. Here, Flynn was to become the god of his own world—only to find his world turned into hell, and it was turned to hell because of himself. Clu is the imperfect image of an imperfect Promethean god, and using his imperfection as the guideline to create perfection. Even Clu’s rendering as an imperfect version of the younger Flynn demonstrates the flaw, but it is deeper than mere appearances. Flynn’s idealism was flawed: something Flynn had to come to terms with and grasp to understand what went wrong with Clu. Human perfection will always be limited when it is an attempt for self-perfection: only in self-transcendence (openness to grace) can perfection be liberating. Flynn saw through his earlier self, the dark side of his being, something Clu could not do. Clu, therefore, is not only the flawed image of a flawed “god,” he is moreover, the immutable position of one who is stuck in themselves, imprisoned in hell.
 
[SDG] The machines in The Matrix had a coherent worldview with aims that made sense within that film. What exactly is Clu trying to do? Create a “perfect world”? And a bread-and-circuses society obsessed with epic gladiatorial games figures into the quest for the perfect world how?
 
Why does Clu, upon learning that he has captured the son of his hated creator, immediately put him into the lightcycle arena where he is likely to be killed? Doesn’t Kevin say later that Kevin and Sam together is exactly what Clu wants since it may flush Kevin out of hiding? Wouldn’t it make more sense to let Sam go and find daddy?
 
The idea of Flynn as “the god of his own world” is perplexing because the grid-world isn’t “Flynn’s world.” He didn’t create it. Until he was accidentally digitized (or whatever) and zapped into cyberspace, he had no idea how it worked from the inside. He was just one user among many who had written a few programs, like Clu.
 
How was Flynn’s idealism flawed? Because it was a quest for “self-perfection”? How? Flynn wasn’t trying to improve himself, or improve mankind by himself. He only wanted to improve the artificial world of the grid. That’s not hubris. And when the iso’s appeared he was thrilled with the implications (however ineffable they might be) for improving the human condition—again, not by his own power, by via encounter with the other. And you see some sort of statement about grace here? If that’s what you get out of it, fine by me, but I don’t see it.

Thanks to all who’ve commented so far. Responses above.

Why did Clu do that? Because he knew Flynn had people working with and for him, and wanted to get Flynn on the move.

Secondly, Flynn did turn the world into one of his creation: this is pointed out a few times in the film. He created Clu in order to help direct the world and make it what he desired out of it. He had made it more than the original and made it into its own.

As for the perfect world: once again, the point is Clu’s idea of perfection was imperfect. The games were a way to create more powerful programs, and none were destroyed: they were remade into Clu’s army.

As with the ideals: Flynn thought he knew what was needed to create the best world, and Clu took on those ideals. As with many ideals, the implicit elements involved with them show out and create the unexpected, things which are far from perfect. Flynn’s ideals were imperfect when he created Clu—not because of the search for self-perfection, but because what he thought such perfection entailed when Clu was made. Flynn developed and went beyond it, Clu could not. He wanted to improve the grid through his own Promethean image—and that can always start off well, but it ends up with a collapse when what is lacking is revealed.
 
[SDG] Clu knew Flynn had people working with and for him? Who, except for Quorra? And what made Clu think that Flynn and/or his agents were aware of Sam’s presence and peril, and were close enough to come to his aid, and that Kevin would survive long enough to be rescued—particularly when it seems Clu himself was just about to kill Sam when he was rescued? For that matter, how did Quorra know that Kevin’s son was in danger?
 
What exactly was the flaw in Kevin’s idea of perfection? What idea of perfection is the movie critiquing? I find it hard to believe that the Kevin Flynn of the first film harbored notions of perfection that, however ruthlessly or fallaciously extrapolated, would lead to a fascist police state. Perhaps that was simply what Clu found necessary to enact Kevin’s idea of perfection, but if so I’m left with no clu whatsoever how Kevin’s idea of perfection was flawed.

Who? Well, it looked like when Kevin Flynn showed up to save his son, he had others with him, and not just Quorra. Probably some of the people who were also at the games were rogues working with him.

How did they know he was in danger? Could be many ways, including spies. Again, Kevin was not working alone.

What was the flaw in the perfection: did you see the film? Was the recreated world perfect? No. It was not. Again, closed systems which are incapable of being changed come toppling down by their weaknesses. Do we know all about his notions of perfection, of what he wanted when he took over the world? No. Do we have to know? No. This is one of the problems with the way people expect stories have to be told: they don’t have to tell everything, nor can they. H.P. Lovecraft, for example, made it clear you should leave out details—yes, you should know what is going on—but you don’t tell it all. There is no way one can tell it all. All stories can be “broken” down with questions (why, for example, didn’t Gandalf just use the Eagles to send Frodo to Mordor?). The point is not “what was the idea” but “what became of the idea” where did it turn to? Where do all closed systems which are promethean in design lead to?
 
[SDG] There have been about ten thousand movies invoking the Promethean theme of technology run amok: the Terminator series, 2001, Jurassic Park, Superman III, The Forbin Project, Blade Runner, any number of “Star Trek” episodes ... not to mention the original Tron. All children of Frankenstein, in one way or another.
 
What exactly does Tron: Legacy contribute to this discussion? What does it add to the premise? How is the system “Promethean”? What line did Flynn cross? If we have no idea what was wrong with Flynn’s idea of perfection, then we don’t have a critique of anything in particular.
 
Rather than a “continuation” of the discussion begun with Frankenstein—which very definitely expressed a critique, or at least an apprehension, of, well, of a number of things, but among them of the dehumanizing and monstrous potential of science unbounded by morality and in particular of human nature and life desacrilized through scientific manipulation—Tron: Legacy appears to say no more than “Technology runs amok sometimes.” You know, like in Tron. Even Jurassic Park, with its cartoon version of chaos theory, had more substance than that.
 
The idea of a false or unworkable notion of perfection was far more evocatively expressed in The Matrix, where the machines’ attempted paradise failed because human nature as we know it instinctively rejects perfection. One way or another, suffering and fallenness are part of the human equation. That’s an interesting idea. As far as I can see, Tron: Legacy merely bandies about the notion of “perfection” and then says “Oops, that didn’t work out.”
 
P.S. Gandalf didn’t ask the Eagles to fly Frodo across Mordor because the Eye of Sauron would never have missed such a blatant violation of his airspace. That, though, is a plot-level question; it doesn’t go to Tolkien’s themes. With Tron: Legacy, I have no clear idea what the themes are, if any.

I disagree with the premise of this review (that “Tron: Legacy” was ever intended to be a great movie). “Tron: Legacy” was intended to be an homage to the original: and on this count it succeeds. Not only that, but it’s an un-ironic, respectful homage to original; it doesn’t completely desecrate the corpse of the original merely for the purpose of cheap laughs: something Kurtzman and Orci could stand to learn.

I think the other thing “Tron: Legacy” is intended to be is a throwback to the Disney family spectacle movies of the ‘70s and ‘80s (like the original “Tron”, “The Black Hole”, and “Flight of the Navigator” just to name three). These are movies meant to be watched and absorbed. And it must be said that with nothing objectionable in it, “Tron: Legacy” is a movie I’d take my kids to, and I can’t say the same about “Avatar” (heck, I wouldn’t even take myself to see that).

It also looked great in IMAX 3D. That said, there were a few moments where I wished they’d traded maybe one or two gratuitous CGI Jeff Bridges shots for maybe a little more visual imagination (compare the light ship sequence from the first film, where they sail over visually imaginative landscapes to the similar sequence in the second film). Also, it must be said that Daft Punk are no Wendy Carlos, and the soundtrack suffers comparatively as a result. If I had to choose which soundtrack composer I’d rather see featured in a cameo in this movie, though, I’m glad it was the Frenchmen.

But, hey—it’s a Tron update/sequel, what are you really expecting? I was expecting lightcycles, Jeff Bridges, and computer programs in glowly outfits throwing discs at each other, all rendered in jaw-dropping IMAX 3D. The CGI Jeff Bridges was pulled off a lot better than I was expecting, the real Jeff Bridges was funnier than I was expecting, Sam Flynn was actually likable as a character (and I love how Pa Flynn completely shattered the emptiness of Sam’s whole playboy millionaire lifestyle with one comment about dogs being cool—and how Sam chose to grow up at the end), and I sure wasn’t expecting “House”‘s Thirteen in a tronsuit. So nice work all around, there.

SPOILER ALERT FOLLOWS!!!

I was also majorly geeked that “Greetings, Programs!” and “I fight for the users,” were both present and accounted for. I thought they could have done more with the messianic creator theme (but I suppose they couldn’t make the elder Flynn more powerful without turning him into Neo/Superman—so that’s one disaster averted), but I have to respect the other theme in the movie: that the Isos, the new Adams and Eves if you will, were (nearly) completely wiped out by a madman bent on creating a perfect society by purging “inferior” beings.

END SPOILER ALERT!

So anyway, I really enjoyed “Tron: Legacy”. It fulfilled or exceeded my expectations in just about every area. I liked it a lot better than “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, a movie which seemed at times bent on inflating my expectations (Army of the Dead? Yes, please! Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition” on a Tesla coil? MAKE IT SO!) and then crushing them in the most pathetic way imaginable (Oh, so I guess the skull just kind of roared one and then turned to dust, then? Wait, this isn’t “Superstition”, what is this crappy emo band ripoff music?).

Oh, and since the Grid has basically been shut off from the rest of the world since 1989, it’s not surprising that the aircraft used in the dogfight closely resembled an AC-130 gunship. But I will concede one point: more Tron (the program) next time, please.
 
[SDG] When did I imply that Tron was meant to be a great movie? I simply believe, as I’ve said over and over—most recently in the Harry Potter and Dawn Treader discussions—that whatever else they do, filmmakers ought to make a good movie. Faithfulness in an adaptation or an homage doesn’t excuse badness in a movie. And it is certainly bad for a movie like Tron: Legacy to go long stretches without any notable action, relatable characters, creative world-building, clever plot complications, dramatic story movement, or much of anything else to engage us; to set up dramatic expectations (as in Kevin’s dramatic appearance at the club) that dissolve in anticlimactic disappointment; to fail to explain so many important points that need explanation; to build to a climactic crescendo in which crucial, deus ex machina-type developments are left unexplained.

Yeah… I agree that there could have been more creative world-building, and I personally would have liked more wacky characters. But this is Tron, man! If it was anything other than what it is, though, it wouldn’t be a Tron movie. The original Tron didn’t have particularly relatable characters or clever plot complications and it certainly was never intended to be an action movie, but you could just kind of watch it and mellow out to Wendy Carlos’ score (I also would have appreciated a score more faithful to the original, but that’s just me) while a bunch of cool stuff happened. I’m not saying we should ever (again) take that sort of zen filmmaking approach to “Koyaanisqatsi”-esque lengths (too much zen is very un-zen), but sometimes you just want to watch something just to watch it.

SPOILER ALERT!

To your point about the final lightshow and apparent deus ex machina at the end: At the end of the film, Kevin Flynn re-integrates Clu back into himself. Kevin Flynn had stated previously in the film that he (Flynn) would not be able to survive this process, but that it was necessary to stop Clu. Apparently, the Grid could not exist in its unredeemed state without its creator (so it started to de-integrate, too). The parallels here between God the Creator (Kevin Flynn), The Fallen Angels (Clu and his minions), Christ (Sam Flynn), and Mankind (Quorra, though I guess Sam Flynn would also represent mankind too, to a degree: created by God after the angels) was striking to me when I watched the film. In the end, Sam Flynn (Christ) saves Quorra (mankind), and in fact, he winds up saving all that is good in Kevin Flynn’s (God’s) creation, as represented by the little thumb drive around his neck which presumably contains Kevin Flynn’s (God’s) “miracle”.
 
“too much zen is very un-zen”: LOVE this, Victor—especially how zen it is! Will definitely be quoting it. Thx.

“[SDG]Faithfulness in an adaptation or an homage doesn’t excuse badness in a movie.”

Or, to apply a recent favorite quote of mine, “A movie’s job is not to live down to its source material.” ;-)
 
Hey, that sounds like me!

Oh! More evidence to support the Kevin Flynn is to Clu as God is to Satan & the fallen angels analogy (which kind of takes it into allegory territory): Clu can not create new programs, he can only corrupt that which already exists (which would also explain why the Grid in 2010 is much darker than it was in 1982, being subjected to thousands of cycles of corruption).

ONE FINAL SPOILER ALERT!!

Also, Tron shows himself to be a stand-in for Michael the Archangel at the end, when he throws off Clu’s corruption and ends up “fight[ing] for the users” (mankind), literally casting down Satan (Clu).

You can have the zen quote for free! :-) Anyway, I don’t think we disagree too much about the film’s merits, but it’s a question of expectations: if “Tron: Legacy” had managed to be some great, action-packed blockbuster of Bruckheimerian proportions, I would have felt cheated. I also wouldn’t have been able to take my kids to see it.

“[SGD] Hey, that sounds like me!”

Seeing as it’s from your “A-Team” review, yes, it should. :-) If I ever do a “Lines I Wish I Had Written” feature for my own blog, that will be up there on my list.

Not having seen the movie in question, I’m reluctant to weigh in on this thread, but I would like to say, SDG, that putting responses to comments in bold directly below said comment is an aspect of Roger Ebert’s genius that I wish you wouldn’t imitate. It’s the only practical option for him, since he gets so many comments on each post that otherwise it would be hard to locate his responses. But you don’t (yet) have that problem, and the technique is aesthetically displeasing and less readable.

SDG,

Like The Pachyderminator, because I haven’t seen Tron: The Legacy, I don’t want to comment on that film.  But, I do have a couple of comments to make:

Unlike The Pachyderminator, I don’t mind - in fact, I appreciate - that you interact with individual posts.  Oh well - One man’s fish is another man’s poison.

Also, I did watch the original Tron when it came out.  And, as a kid I loved it.  I couldn’t stop playing the video game afterward.  (Remember when we went to video arcades?  Those were the days.  Expensive, but fun.)  Having said that, it was the cool factor that I liked, not the characters.  Consequently, I don’t care about the Flynn’s, and I don’t think that Tron: The Legacy will have the same cool factor with all the other CGI stuff out there today.

Finally, relating to Avatar - I watched an hour of it (non-3D, at home), but was so bored that I never finished it.  I’m *more than willing* to suspend disbelief for the sake of a good story, but Avatar was too much.

Wait ... one more thing.  I don’t know if other reviewers have the “Lines I Wish I Had Written” feature that you do.  But, if they do, then you’ve penned a doozie that even Ebert would be proud of:
Well, okay, not Raiders, but at least Romancing the Stone.
Great stuff.  Keep up the fantastic work.

This following is a response to SDG’s response to my original comment above:

Fair enough User, I will rectify: SDG writes, “The only problem I see with your thesis is that I can’t see how Tron: Legacy is in any way concerned with anything remotely as interesting as the questions you raise. If you simply mean is that the questions that occur to you while you are watching Tron: Legacy are more interesting than the questions that occur to you while you are watching Avatar, then of course I can’t disagree with that, but that’s a standard of limited value in assessing the relative merits of the films.”
I believe we may have a difference in values regarding our critical criteria. I do not believe that the only candidates for highly valuable philosophical questions a film raises are ones that the filmmakers intend directly. If this were the case, then we Catholics who benefit from knowledge of Divine Revelation would be banished to a rather dull cinematic environment, especially with Disney who boils things down to the dullest common denominator. The filmmakers certainly did not directly deal with those questions I mentioned, and almost certainly did not intend them either. Regardless, the materials for the insights are present (which I will explain shortly), and one needs only to appropriate one’s intelligence to perceive them (I am not much of a Postmodern here. I judge the form of intelligence to be stable across individuals, even if varying in intensity and appropriation. See Aristotle, Aquinas, and Lonergan on Experiencing, Understanding, Judging, and Deciding). Bringing Catholic intelligence to bear yields even further questions and insights than for a non-Catholic, which we Catholics believe to be an enlargement of perspective.
Here is an explanation of where I understand the materials for the insights to arise in the film, question by question: “As we CAN do almost anything virtually, how do we draw the line between the values of our virtual reality and our natural reality?” Kevin seems to be conflicted about the two lives he has built, his virtual and his natural life. His ability to prioritize his heart’s investment in these two worlds becomes conflicted, as we see when he is explaining to Sam why he never returned (Would he ultimately have become trapped, had he not been spending so much time there to begin with, abandoning his son at a critical age for all of childhood?). “What do we do with addiction to the sway that this world provides?” Here we find perhaps the weakest denouement of the film perhaps with its inexplicable resolution, but shown nonetheless as Kevin is initially distant and emotionally unavailable to Sam. He still seems obsessed with the grid after his reunion with Sam, even with all gone awry. “As Catholics, how do we communicate with postmodern technophiles who have lost sight of the value in participating actively in a very imperfect human world, one that modernity has failed to provide answers for on its own?” The whole draw of Tron to begin with is the fleshing out of virtual worlds, something that has continued to garner billions of dollars in the natural world, even during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. The film captures you because of the whole idea of it, the terror and the promise. I am aware of many people in my life who tolerate their “real” lives so that they can step back onto the grid at night after their family has gone to bed. No wonder, when our modern life is a swirl of disagreements and questions and social surd. Do Catholics have something to offer to speak through this cacophony of confusion? “What do we do with our own evil that arises from the pursuit of technology, even when undertaken originally with good motives?” The materials for this insight occur in the film with Kevin and Clu’s storyline. Kevin meant Clu for good, but Clu creates the ultimate imperfection- genocide- via his misguided pursuit of perfection (I agree with you that this whole thing is badly mucky, but it is there).

So, if we are merely left to the filmmakers’ intentions, censored by Disney’s agenda, we are truly in a rough spot. Permit me my Catholic intelligence and Tron: Legacy might even be more interesting than anyone directly involved with the film will ever know.

Thanks to SDG for an interesting discussion!

Wonderful discussion. Thanks to all who posted thoughtfully above. (Which means everybody!)

Excellent review, SDG! I always appreciate your writing & POV.

I liked Tron: Legacy for the very same reasons Victor cites. I thought it was remarkable how they captured the tone of the original perfectly.

No, it’s not a perfect film but it did fulfill everything I wanted it to. Did it tread new ground? No. But many thanks to Mr Hallowell’s comments for putting into ASCII what I’ve been on the edge of thinking (LOL) for 2 days.

Something about Tron: Legacy stayed with me in a way that nothing about Avatar did. Sure, the world-building in Avatar was phenomenal but the triteness of the script, the predictability of the plot, the mash-up quality of . . . well, pretty much every other James Cameron film all rolled up into Blue Monkeys(tm) vs. White Men caused Avatar’s overall effect on me to be one of anger & frustration to the verge of boredom.  What is all that pretty if there’s not brainy underneath? The jury’s still out if Tron: Legacy is any more brainy but, for me, it feels that way. It just hit home like Avatar never could for me.

Yes, there’s a lot of pretty (OK, it’s a different sort of pretty - in the abstract SF geek sort rather than the fantasy/ancient realm sort as in LOTR) in Tron: Legacy & it’s a far more abstract pretty than Avatar. Maybe that abstract design is what leads to the almost abstract sensibility of the 2 Tron films. I did want them to go deeper into the philosophy of the world they’d built but the 1st film really didn’t, either.

Harry Knowles’ profanity-laced (you’ve been warned) review at Ain’t It Cool News says Tron: Legacy “feels like a middle film” & he’s absolutely correct. His final assessment is this: “The first TRON was about what a corporation does to things it doesn’t understand or value. In Tron: Legacy, it’s about the artist playing GOD and (mess)ing it all up.” Whether the film’s creators intended the imagery Mr Hallowell writes about, I seriously doubt. But in writing a story about man trying to be God . . . & then a *miracle* happens, well there’s interesting philosophy inherent in the film because of it. This miracle in Tron: Legacy reminded me of the Silmarillion & how Iluvatar *baptizes* the song that the Maia sang that created the dwarves. For me, there’s quite enough there in the film to make me pine for repeated viewings. I really want to see it in Imax 3D!

For what it’s worth, IMO, the 3D in Tron: Legacy was vastly superior to that of Cameron’s film, which gave me a headache. The 3D in Tron: Legacy was beautiful & effective - especially since the real world sequences were 2D. Tron: Legacy is like a geek’s Wizard of Oz, in that respect! I almost didn’t see it in 3D but I’m very glad I did! I think the film was enhanced by the use of 3D & that it improved my experience of the film.

Finally, I liked the Daft Punk soundtrack much better than the original. Maybe because the Walter/Wendy Carlos factor kinda creeps me out. Sorry. I just end up thinking, “This music was written by a ‘woman’ who used to be a man.” It’s distracting.

FWIW, I will be coming back to this discussion! Just haven’t had time this week with the final mad dash of Christmas preparation (choir practice, taping the final Christmas episode of Reel Faith, winding up the year at work, etc.—no shopping!). Merry Christmas all!

Finally got around to reading this. A few quick thoughts (warning: there be spoilers here).

First, it astounds me that anyone could think this film is of a piece with the original. In many ways, it feels to me that this film was actually made by people who *don’t like* the original Tron. (Certainly this is true of Disney-Pixar chief John Lasseter, who was reportedly responsible for persuading Disney to ditch the sequel that Steve Lisberger had been developing in favour of the sequel that we are now discussing.)

At a minimum, the sequel gets certain basic concepts from the original film wrong or ignores them completely.

Steve has already mentioned how Kevin Flynn did *not* create the cyberspatial world in the original film; it was just a parallel reality that existed without any humans even really knowing about it (kind of like the secret toy societies in the Toy Story movies: the toys owe their very existence to humans, and they generally follow the “programming” that the humans give to them, yet somehow they have a self-awareness and a life apart from their interaction with humans that the humans remain utterly oblivious to). But the sequel implies, right from its prologue, that the cyberspatial world of Tron was something that Flynn quasi-intentionally created, that it was something he had been “dreaming” about but thought he’d never get to see.

And then there is the fact that the original film was profoundly concerned with the relationship between programs and their users: Flynn had Clu, Lora had Yori, Gibbs had Dumont, Dillinger had Sark, and Alan Bradley had Tron, the latter of whom communicates with his user through an input-output tower in a scene that has echoes of the baptism of Jesus. But in the sequel? Nothing, apart from the tortured relationship between Flynn and Clu 2.0, the latter of whom is now not just one of many programs but a sort of demiurge who has been given authority over all the other programs from the get-go. And the fact that the sequel pays so little attention to the user-program relationship means lines like “I fight for the users” ring more than a little hollow, now; it’s just another nod to the original film that exists purely for the nod’s sake, like “That’s a big door!” (in the original film, Flynn speaks this line when he is trying to impress his ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend with his inability to take things all that seriously, but in the sequel, Flynn’s son says it only to himself… and he says it long after it has become obvious that he is going to *have* to say it, otherwise why would the filmmakers have put that big door there).

Then there are the enormous plot holes, which again the original film did not have. E.g., Steve asks: “Why does Clu, upon learning that he has captured the son of his hated creator, immediately put him into the lightcycle arena where he is likely to be killed?” Even earlier than that, though, we could ask why Clu sent a page to Alan Bradley and then had nobody waiting to apprehend whoever it was that turned up at the replica of Flynn’s arcade in cyberspace. Yes, Sam is apprehended by a Recognizer, but only as one of many anonymous programs, and he is immediately sent into the arena for a disc war where he is almost killed. In the original film, Flynn was arrested by some guards the moment he showed up in cyberspace, even though the Master Control Program hadn’t planned to abduct him in the first place (he seems to have abducted Flynn as an emergency measure because Flynn, who was hacking into his system, happened to be sitting right in front of the de-atomizer). But in the sequel, Clu sets a trap and baits it, and then… is surprised when the son of Flynn turns up in the arena and happens to survive the first few rounds of a disc war. Lame.

And then, of course, there is the fact that the original film was trying to say something about humanity and technology, whereas the sequel doesn’t care about such issues What. So. Ever. The original film began and ended with shots that drew pretty explicit parallels between human society and the circuitry in our computers; Koyaanisqatsi would make a similar point, and at greater length, one year later, but Tron came first. See also the wide shot of the room filled with cubicles where Bradley works, which is kind of like a “grid” in its own right. There is nothing like this in the sequel, which merely ends with two people sitting on a motorbike. (Speaking of which, why, exactly, was Quorra’s significance within the Grid significant, again? And what, exactly, are we supposed to make of her transition to meatspace? If she used to be “biodigital jazz, man”, is she now just another biological specimen? Or does she have special powers in our world, just as Kevin Flynn once had powers in hers? (And by the way, why doesn’t Sam Flynn have any of the powers that his father once had, being a user and all?))

The sequel isn’t a *complete* write-off, thankfully. I do like the Daft Punk score, even though it has almost nothing in common with Wendy Carlos’s score. But then, I can think of quite a few lousy films that had great soundtracks.

imo Tron Legacy is a piece of ultra expensive filler written by a committee trying to fill in the demographic and cash register dots—father-son pathos for the family vibe; rebellious young son and babe for the teens and post teens and, since it is assumed that light sabers and cycle races and plane dogfights either “worked” in the first film or are improvements on what worked—we get those ad nauseum. Some pseudo philosophic points make it through the blender mix but they are neither coherent nor carry any earned emotional weight: oh, so Clu’s program armies are going to go through the portal and take over the world, whatev. Plus, the whole digital 3D movie experience is not as viivd, not as vibrant as traditional 2D projector movies or good quality DVDs shown at home. Even with the fancy-shmancy 3D the contrast ratios just aren’t there whether we are talking about intentional noirish cinematography or scenes that are supposed to take place in conventional light. Contrast the sense of visual ennui you get from prolonged exposure to the supposedly, well, technologically literally, state-of-the-art special effects of this movie and, yes, the predecessor animation Tron, or the Matrix, or 2001, or take-your-pick 2D movie from your favorite cinematic era—it could be Mann’s Last of the Mohicans or the mature 40’s era black and white films or whatever and whenever. Even as eye candy this is pretty monotonous and soporific stuff.

...well, light frisbees for light sabers mostly which, was originally probably easier to animate, evocative maybe of Greek discus, and tying in to what was the actual frisbee fad. Now tricked out with the jujistu and riot girrl athletics. ooooohhhhh /sarc

I may be a fairly simple person, but i did not notice many of the problems with the movie until you stated them back to me. Flynn’s awesome grand entrance was totally ruined by Tron with a grappling hook. That is just one of the many things that you brought up that kinda made me say…. Oh yeahhhhhh…..

In using the screenwriters tools as well, they tried to foreshadow Tron by playing him earlier in the movie. The way he is placed is not effective at all. He was a character I was paying particularly close attention to because I think Bruce Boxleitner is really cool, having seen all of Babylon 5. I wanted to see his face “made young” as they did with Jeff Bridges face. Which they did do a little bit at the start but not as much as I would have liked. The character of Tron is also seems to be missing what should be a few more scenes. Him all of a sudden deciding to help Flynn escape does not seem founded in logic. If Clu is bad because of his original programming then it does not make sense for Tron to ever become “bad” as he is in the movie without being repurposed or whatever. and if he was repurposed he should have had to be reprogrammed to be “good” again, instead of just changing his mind like he did.

Off topic: I like the bold faced comments, hate the two pages of divided comments. If the bosses can’t disable comments on page one then perhaps you can make the first comment a request to post on the second page

Martin T, thanks, I agree. I should have done this from the beginning and will be sure to do it going forward. Cheers.

Peter T. Chattaway: Awesome analysis as usual. You are The Man!

I liked the story. As a parent I thought it had a good message of consequences especially with regards to science and technology.  Did you somehow miss the idea that it was about a man who was trying to achieve perfection, but the concept/dream became perverted. He realized this fact (too late) and the fact that perfection was unattainable so he imprisoned himself to find a solution for his mistake because he had a sense of responsibility? I think they mention that in some key dialogue. Plus it had cool special effects. Re: gravity - there is a lack of gravity or accurate gravity in some/most games because the physics are complex to program. Ask my buddy who wrote gravity code for second life. Therefore, a game or virtual environment which accurately simulates gravity (forces on a disc, flying vehicle, motor-bike) would truly be futuristic.  Regards.

As an original Tron fan I thoroughly agree with your analysis. Tron Legacy left me cold, confused and disappointed. The one highlight was the revelation of what had become of Tron and his final ‘coming good’ but it was too little and too late.
Thanks.

In contrast, Tron: Legacy does raise interesting philosophical questions that, even though mishandled by the script writers, validly confront the viewer.

I think the problem is that Tron:Legacy doesn’t so much as raise the questions as mention them in passing.  As SDG points out, the questions can be projected onto the film, but only through the viewer’s own perception.  The film itself does little to nothing to explore the issues in any meaningful way (Kevin’s line about how the algorithm’s will change everything delivered like a stoned college sophomore from the ‘70’s is a perfect example - in fact, I am almost certain he used a couple “mans” in there during his delivery - as in “hey, man, this is really cool”).  But zero depth.

I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t (if it’s even still playing), but I’ll probably grab the DVD or Blu-Ray. Especially if there are lots of special features and commentaries; I find that learning about the filmmakers’ intent makes even mediocre films much more enjoyable. (Though I draw the line at the deluxe edition of Avatar.)

Ndee, I think what Steven was saying is that the games ARE more futuristic, but that makes them less cool. Here’s an example from another genre:

Mario, Sonic, and the like can change the direction of their jumps in midair. You and I can’t. Now the actual physics of what goes on when an actual human being jumps are complex enough that it would take much more sophisticated code on a much better computer than an NES or a Genesis to simulate it. But that would take away the superhuman ability of our heroes to change direction and speed.

What Steven was saying was that the original light cycles were cool because, even though they were too primitive to behave like real motorcycles, they could do something that real bikes can’t possibly do: violate the laws of physics by making a 90-degree turn on a dime without any effect of inertia.

Side note: I think there’s another game that the light cycles resemble more closely than Snake, but I may be thinking of the game that was based on TRON. All I know is I played a clone of it in some cheap shovelware game pack on Windows 98 a few years back.

the movie is great hope the make a part 2