Forums (I/O Tower)
Forums 
  General Discussion 
 A misconception surrounding "TRON"


New New Comments | Post No Change | Locked Closed
AuthorComments:  Page: of 3 PagesNextLast
Program BASIC
User

Posts: 148
A misconception surrounding "TRON"

on Wednesday, January, 15, 2003 9:18 AM
Dear Programs,

"TRON" wasn't a failure at all. It was a movie so *AHEAD* of its own times I'm pesantely surprised it made big profit and - STILL - it's fruiting big $$$$ for the company's pockets.

The movie costed about 17 million dollars - a pretty big number for 1981. Not that big, but anyway hard to digest.
YEs, TRON could have grossed much more than what it actually did, but 33 MILLION DOLLARS domestically - for 1982 - it's nothing to sneer to, even...
I think TRON did huge overseas. We can suppose the movie cashed about 50-60 million dollars in Europe, japan and other countries. I don't rememeber to have read anywhere it bombed overseas. Don't you?

Then, there are the pretty successful VIDEO and RENTAL figures in the 1982-2003 arc of time, TV broadcasting rights across 100 countries, DVD sales (we all know the 20th Anniversary DVD special edition was an huge smash hit) and so on...

I don't wanna speak about merchandising and GAMES. The GAMES were gianteous hits in 1982-83.

Why is DISNEY producing a TRON 2.0 Game today? Meditate, programs. Because they made big $$$$$$$ with TRON 1.0 ...

Opinions?buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

is program's best friend. Don't betray it --- NEVER!
 
Sketch
Sector Admin

Posts: 2,938
No Title

on Wednesday, January, 15, 2003 11:17 AM
I've always wondered what it made. Was that the total amount the opening day? Seems films industries rank how successful a movie is based on total ticket sales on opening day. Of course it seems film companies also compare that amount with the amount the compition made.

Here's a neat thing to do. Got to various sites that sell the TRON DVD and look at the customer reviews. 90-95% of them are always positive.

buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_bezel/
 
Atreis
User

Posts: 21
No Title

on Wednesday, January, 15, 2003 2:48 PM
I've always wondered about that. It just didn't seem right to think that the movie didn't turn a profit, despite the people that would call it a commercial flop. I think expectations are just too high in the film industry (among others). If you aren't making hundreds of millions of dollars, apparently it's "not good enough". But then again, I can see why Disney would think it could have done a lot better...not from expectations but from potential. It just wasn't really the right time for that.

It's obvious lots of people still care about it, so I'm glad they're trying to bring it back for this generation.buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online


 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Wednesday, January, 15, 2003 4:45 PM
I guess the thing the Disney execs had in mind was a response similar to Star Wars and Star Trek TMP. That isn't a fair comparison. I don't know why there is so much invested in the false notion that if a film isn't the new #1 it's a failure or a flop. What a crock. I never gave a kahootie about what other viewers think, what critics think, what opening days figures say,... blah blah blah. I'll see what I like and like what I like. And I like Tron!

However, not to scoff at Tron, I don't really buy into the expression that it's ahead of it's time either. It's really not. Granted, there's a much larger number of computer literate viewers now, but that doesn't mean that Tron would make any more sense to them or earn any more appreciation. What makes Tron good is it's artistic expression, not it's technological one. Furthermore, the technological aspects of the story is in all honesty rather faulty, so if anything, I think the LESS computer savvy one is the more likely they are to enjoy Tron, since so many viewers will tend to penalize a film for rubbing against the grain of what is percieved as what's real.

But, as we all know, what makes Tron great is precisely the opposite of computer science because it's really a fantasy story, bending the rules of known technology, partly on purpose, partly by poetic license, partly by just being wrong. Movie-goers at large can be a crude, tasteless, shiftless bunch sometimes that wouldn't know a true visionary if it bit them on their Jujifruits.

So who cares about how the film did?

Try doing what I do. Don't try to justify the film and don't try to build the film up or season it for those who don't like it by their using the film's anti-popular aspects as an excuse. You don't have to convince your buddy's that you think your girlfriend is pretty when they all think she's a dog. We don't need counter-facts to wage popularity wars with those who don't like Tron or to make us feel more fitting in in a world that's nearly forgotten about it. Whether or not Disney is still cashing in on Tron doesn't mean we have any more or less reason to remain or become a fan. I don't even care if Tron had been an explosive hit embraced by millions more fans because by default I don't care what anyone else thinks.

You love it.

I love it.

Forget them.

End of story... and buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
KiaPurity
User

Posts: 3,482
Heh.

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 12:21 AM
When I first saw it in 1992, I had no idea what the hidden plot analysis there were for me to go through. For me, (a 10 year old at that time. Yeah, I'm young! :P) it was a really wonderful movie about computers. ^^; Never mind I already had computers in my house by then. (First computer was in 1983)
When I heard about the special edition DVD, I got the urge to dig up the tape and watch it again just for old time's sake.
I really understood why everyone considers it to be ahead of its time: internet and pc's.
I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but yeah, didn't it seem weird that Flynn could easily access the Encom computers from his place? (Internet, ne? 'sides, when I checked, they had modems for C64 and Vic-20... mostly likely the same for other computers.)
Again, PC's... see above and all those programs that are encountered in the movie.

...I broke my mind. @_@buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

Kia: Cool. I'm a infamous mythological perfect User.

 
Program BASIC
User

Posts: 148
!

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 4:30 AM
The JEdiUnit,

Don't take it as "personal", of course, but I don't AGREE with you.

I for first don't care about box office performances as long as I love the movies, I was just pointing something in this thread - call it "dissertation".

I for first i'm a rebel, and really don't care about the half-assed mass-media's opinions. Never did, never will do. We all do it, I guess.

TRON was much more *AHEAD* of its time than you would think, and STILL the movie is magically ahead of our time, so figure it out! What kya was mentioning is just the "visible edge of the iceberg" - there is much more in TRON to argue.

It's not quite a fantasy. I think everything TRON is showing, one day it will be possible or it's *ALREADY* possible now, 'cause the way programs or systems work in TRON is pratically the same they work today.
Besides, I really think programs are twisted forms of life, so i take the movie in a serious approach.
If I have to come clean, I think the "technological side" of the movie is also pertinent, and the FX was/IS totally mind-blowing. In TRON, art and technology mixed-up in an unique, outstanding, unforgettable blend. They aren't able to do it anymore. That's the bittersweet truth.

I understand your point of view on the "fantasy" side of TRON, but remember... there was a time in which the NET was just fantasy.

I'm talking to you... and it's impossible. Because I'm Italian, and you're American, and there are HUNDREDS of kilometres between me and you!

TRON is one of the greatest movies of all the times. And it's reality. Ask it to Kevin Flynn.

buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

is program's best friend. Don't betray it --- NEVER!
 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 9:59 AM
The reason I say Tron isn't ahead of it's time is because to say something is ahead of it's time is by saying it presents stuff before it was possible or invented. Tron doesn't do that for the most part because (like examples that were already pointed out here, ie. modems for one) the things it presents were ALREADY possible and being done. What's 'ahead of one's time' about showing stuff that was already being done? Also, the rest of the things presented in Tron that weren't possible then STILL aren't (teleportation). So again, how can it be labeled ahead of what may never come to be? Tron enjoyed blurring the edges between the known possibilities and what was clearly not, but not to challange our technological expectations of the future, but to create a fictional setting more interesting than any real one. Mind you, this movie was aimed at video gamers not IBM CEO's.

Now, before anyone takes me the wrong way, all I mean is that the suggestion that if a film like Tron is worthy of the label of being ahead of it's time based on that criteria then so is pretty much all other science fiction films.

Other compliments just seem more fitting to me, ones that do a better job of standing beside this film more well and clearly than more common films, like the ones I already mentioned.

Besides, just being possible in the future doesn't make an idea better than one equally interesting that never will come to be. If anything, I prefer the ones that will never come to be since shows like classic Star Trek is now half as interesting since so much of it's technology is common worldly stuff now.

"Ahead of it's time" is not all the compliment it's cracked up to be even when it does fit.

But I see what you all are saying, but don't necessarily disagree. Just that point-of-view thing.buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
Sketch
Sector Admin

Posts: 2,938
No Title

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 2:33 PM
I always felt it was ahead of its time. I'm just sharing how I feel. Watching the DVD really puts alot of the things people don't realize into perspective. One thing that I find amazing is when making the movie they wanted to show computers not as a calculating peice of hardware but as a useful tool. Lisnberger said at that time computers really didn't have a face in society, and alot of that society was afraid of computers in some degree. He felt it was the artist job to try and add or establish some form of humanism into the technology. People didn't understand and relate to the movie because society wasn't in that cyber society like todays generation is. It really relates more today then back then if you think about it.
buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_bezel/
 
KiaPurity
User

Posts: 3,482
Erm. To clarify this...

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 4:13 PM
Yeah, the internet, pc's, modems and etc existed, but they weren't widely used until today.
I believe that the movie took advantage of the existing technology to try to at least bring that knowledge of the public.
I actually forgot that the tablet that I have for my current PC wasn't the *first* tablet that I've had. I had one for the C64. (I keep forgetting that there were already existing technology)
Anyhow, it's really interesting seeing how different it was back then to compare it with the movie and now. The movie does seem more suitable for this decade now that everyone's familiar with it, but actually, Tron pretty much helped push things along.
It was one of the reasons that I wanted to do Graphic Design with computers. :]buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

Kia: Cool. I'm a infamous mythological perfect User.

 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 4:22 PM
I hear what you're saying Sketch, and I remember those same interviews. They were interesting.

Only, just like the other points, I don't see how "humanizing the interpretation of computers" is "ahead of it's time." Look at 2001 A Space Oydessy. That was made in 1968 and HAL 9000 "humanized" computers 15 years before Tron, and in an intellegent and creative way as well. Practically every espisode of the classic Trek did too. Humanizing technology is nothing new in Tron's day, since even H.G. Wells experimented with those and many other similar concepts 100 years or so ago.

To repeat, don't get me wrong. I praise the B'Jesus out of Tron, but the only thing it accomplished with technology was to make it fashionable with that generation. But what the compliment is is that Tron's new vision of the same thing was beautiful in a brand new way. It's message was it's own. It's targeted audience was brave. Since there was already other techno-stories that had already been done before Tron, it wasn't the technological aspects that were "ahead of it's time", or the technology itself. Technology and humanity has been made film neighbors many times before but how they touch each other is what makes each film/story unique, and Tron's expression of it was utterly fantastic.

So, you don't have to be FIRST to be fantastic. That's good, because Tron was not first.buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
Compucore
User

Posts: 4,419
I think part iof this is.

on Thursday, January, 16, 2003 8:20 PM
Other movies like 201 a Space Oddessy and The Star Trek Series. (I'm a fan of the original star Trek over here.) They did to some some extent to humanize the computer. But not completely here. I remember both very well. THe thing is that you may have overlooked one minor thing between the Star Trek series/2011 A Space Odyssey and Tron.

1) Both Star Trek and 2001 did give the computer a voice to speak with. By means of some kind of artificial intelligence and a voice to respond by to the users or in this case to interact with crew of the shp.

2) In tron we not only get that part where it is already in the film. We get to hear not only the MCP talking to Dillinger or to Sark in the computer.. But there is one other step that Tron take in which the other two don't. (I'm just voicing my opinion here on it.) Tron takes you inside the computer. To see what it is like within the computer. Meaning that we are being drawn into the inner guts of the computer. Does Star Wars or 2001 A Space Odyssy do that when they came out. I haven't seen it. If there is Where in the fild does it show it that your at the microscopic level where your literally at the atomic level point inside the computer.

Tron brought that to us and not only that. within the mocie the Character Kevin Flynn is interacting with other life forms within the computer. And this I mean the other programs that live there for the user. Like Crom, Ram, Tron, Yori, Dumont. Does that happen in Star Trek or in Space Odyssy. These are just a few that I have seen from tron that are in there. And I don't want to sound like I am putting you down either. I just want to show you that there other things that may have been overlook from what you had written in. And I feel like the others do. That Tron is ahead of its time as well. Because the two films that you had mentioned did not show that part in theirs when they came out. Fine the director may have felt that it was not needed when they were made. Or didn't take into consideration at the time of production. Because they wanted something else instead.


buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

2 Legit 2 quit

End of line

Compucore

VROOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!

To compute or not to compute that is the question at hand. Tis nobler to compile in C++ or in TASM.


 
Trace
User

Posts: 1,530
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 12:48 AM
Interesting conversation, everyone! I don't have anything to add at this time, but I like what you all have to say. What a cool, diverse group of Tron fans we have here! buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online


 
Nikster
User

Posts: 1,462
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 12:48 AM
What I think made Tron 'ahead of it's time' was the special effects. No other movie made at that point used CGI, at least not to the same extent.buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

________________________

"The flippity on the google loads the Flynn to the disc battles the guy bad. Day wins. Said nuff!" - DaveTRON

Jack Thompson is to attorneys what Fred Phelps is to organized religion - Me

 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 9:52 AM
Compucore, thanks for the reply, but in fact I didn't overlook the difference you point out. The reason I didn't bother mentioning it is because just because Tron shows a P.O.V. from within the computer doesn't make it any more "ahead of it's time" because that P.O.V. is pure fiction no more real now than then, thus has zero to do with whether it was ahead of it's time or not.

Nikster, I agree with the CGI being highly advanced, but 'technically' it still wasn't the first to use CGI. It was the first to use it in that scale and have so much of it. CGI had been at least 'seen' in previous films. The first teeny example that jumps out at me is the technical scematics of the Death Star on Star Wars (the one shown when R2 was being downloaded at the Rebel Base). Cheeky and fleeting, but none-the-less still and a few years before Tron.

But I'm with Trace. This is a fun conversation.



It just seems to me that Tron's place in history was the next natural step in the evolution of sci-fi films. It has it's place and it's accomplishments, but to say it's "ahead of it's time" is implying that it happended when it really wasn't expected to happen and almost when it wasn't supposed to be able to happen. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci was ahead of his time. He developed things that not only didn't exist around him, but also didn't even exist long after him. He envisioned everything from helicopters to you name it, and NOW, we really do have them. THAT is "ahead of one's time". On the ohter hand, Tron was a step in a naturally pre-existing progression. Agreed, a vital and significant and glorious step... but none-the-less, part of a ladder that existed before AND after Tron. I just can't personally see that as being out of step with it's own time... personally.

Edit: ...I hope nobody has the SLIGHTEST impression I'm knocking Tron. I love Tron, along with lots of other sci-fi. I just (personally) don't wish to compliment them to the extent of getting history skewed just for an extra "umpf"... if you know what I mean.

Man, I need to think of some kind of "praise" topic so you's all don't go thinkin' I'm a virus program or somethin'!

buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
Program BASIC
User

Posts: 148
!

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 10:24 AM
Okay,

It's time to reply again.

TRON was so much special NEITHER 'cause it tried to *humanize* computers just for an useless, gratuitous guilty pleasure act, NEITHER because - in a stretch of imagination - it tried to create a mere medieval "fantasy movie" with programs replacing knights and recognizers replacing flying dragons. Both options are pesantly off-road.
TRON was so special because it SUCEEDED into VISUALIZING programs for what they ACTUALLY represent, then and today - TRON extrapolated the "human" inside the machine, and it wasn't a fantasy AT ALL! Still today, it's not a fantasy.

After all, we're all genetic programs written by a mysterious entity we use to call "God". That's not a parable. Something has truly created US, because we're way too much "perfectly engineered" to be the result of an incident or a combinations of successful happenings.

Well, in the computer world it's the same.

There is nothing in TRON "merely fantastic", made just for the "pleasure" of the fantasy. A solar sailor isn't a gratuitous fantasy factor: it could be a light beam or a "phone impulse" - the precursor of the Internet's basical mechanics or what you see and experiment day by day, through your technology.

There is nothing WRONG with the way programs and system work, as portrayed in TRON. It's all REAL and righteously portrayed. It's reality. Only, you see the graphical "human representation" of the whole process... and I guess (*it's just me and Steven Liesberger*) it's really NEAR to the way it actually is, beyond the screen. It's frightening but, like it or not, there is MORE "human" in the machines than what you would think. Then, TRON was ahead of its time because it was a DISCOVERY.buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

is program's best friend. Don't betray it --- NEVER!
 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 11:02 AM
I guess that's where we stand then.

I'd just 'recommend' to you that (as mentioned in your subject header) you avoid labeling this and other similar differences as a "misconseption" implying there is a "right and wrong" when it's clearly a matter of "personal interpretation". Release dates, visual effects, story content, even ticket sales can be discussed in an open forum in a measurable way, accomidating some undeniable truths... God and "daily life in a computer" cannot. They seem very clear to you and I'm glad for you. But just be aware that as far as discussions go, they're just opinions. With that, I'm sure you'd agree I and others with differing opinions are not victims of "misconseption", right?

I try not put my "opinion" ahead of anyone's on this or any similar subject and hope you feel the same way too.

But we both greatly agree on Tron being a great film.

buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
Sketch
Sector Admin

Posts: 2,938
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 1:29 PM
Here's how I see it. Linsberger had a vision that would not just test Disneys animation but would show what a number crunching computr could do. Sure there are other films before Trons time that had little bit's of CGI. Black Hole is one that comes to mind. But Linsberger invisioned getting artists together and experimenting with that new digital medium. He saw the potential of CGI. Quote from George Lucas from my ILM book,

"I've never been interested in computers," Lucas laughed. "I'm interested in making movies and creating images and in doing it the easiest way possible."

Computers at the time sure wasn't an easy way to make a film. Lisnberger took a huge chalange, one that many don't realize. Making Tron was no easy task CGI wize nor was the backlight composoting. Sure Tron wasn't the "first" film to use cgi, but it was the first to use it to replace real live action shots. On the dvd on of the people that helped with the film said that cgi offered them for the first time to move into and around the picture, unlike traditional 2D animation where you can only zoom into the picture plane. Basically they were able to immerse the audience visually. Tron was a major steping stone in the evolution of cgi special effects.

Crude, I feel like I just wrote a essay paper. buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_bezel/
 
TheJediUnit
User

Posts: 474
No Title

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 1:45 PM
"Tron was a major steping stone in the evolution of cgi special effects. "

Yea Sketch, I agree, in whole. I basicly said the same thing a few different ways in a few different posts. If we're still talking about "ahead of it's time", then I suppose the expression is used differently and conveys different meanings to different people, but admittedly I thought it was simpler than that. I 'personally' don't see Tron ahead of it's time, but instead see it as 'right' on time, if that makes sense.

Anyway, I'd better move on to another topic. I don't want to look like I'm beating a dead horse when I'm only trying to describe my opinion properly, to be at least understood and not necessarly accepted as gospel.

Oh, and the Lucas quotes... Very nice. What makes you think I admire Lucas' point of view? OH... my name. HA!

buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

"Having is not as pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
--Spock
 
Compucore
User

Posts: 4,419
Thats a matter of interpretation

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 2:14 PM
TheJediUniot it depends on how you look at it Now tell me which other movies that you have seen before Tron that are dealing inside the computer. I have not personally seen a movie before tron that does that. And so what if it is pure fiction. That is what some of the movies are that we tend to watch on the big screen is fictional. While others that are made are not pure fiction. They are meant to represent the facts that are out there. For example, a few years ago I went to see the movie JFK. Now this movie is not a fictional but a representation of what happened to the presidence of JFK when he was in the whtie house. point finale.

The cgi that was used for the technical schematics for the death star is not as highly advanced to what they were doing in the Movie Tron. Take a look at some of the things that were done for the movie tron and compare it to the Movie star wars when it came out. The technical schematics is a simple thing to be drawn up and to be shown. in ratracing format. In the movie Tron tron the geometric designs of the light cycles, Sarks carir that he used in the movie, the tanks within the movie. Are not only done from raytracing but also has texture to it. different lighting effects to show the shape of it. The technology used tat the time of Star wars when it came out in 1979. And when Tron came out in 1982 Which is about three years apart that technology has change a lot in those three years. So how can you compare the single specs of a schematic to something like what had used for making the light cycles, the carier, and the what ever else was used in there. And not say that it was ahead of its time. The way that your interpreting it that the tech spec used to show the death star and what is used in the TRon movie are teh same. Which in this case is not true. Since LIM did this when star wars came out. Is not the same technology used when Tron was made. There was three different companies used in the making of Tron. So tehre is a difference in what you are saying.


buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

2 Legit 2 quit

End of line

Compucore

VROOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!

To compute or not to compute that is the question at hand. Tis nobler to compile in C++ or in TASM.


 
Sketch
Sector Admin

Posts: 2,938
The quote.

on Friday, January, 17, 2003 3:10 PM
I just used it to make a comparision between Lisnberger and Lucas. Don't get me wrong Lucas was a great visionary, just pointing out how Lucas at the time was not interested in CGI while Linsberger was. buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_bezel/
 
 Page: of 3 PagesNextLast
New New Comments | Post No Change | Locked Closed
Forums 
  General Discussion 
 A misconception surrounding "TRON"