Forums (I/O Tower)
Forums 
 TRON: LEGACY 
 My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)


New New Comments | Post No Change | Locked Closed
AuthorComments: FirstPrevious Page: of 5 Pages
Argent
User

Posts: 274
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Friday, March, 11, 2011 7:53 PM
Byteman Wrote:You say I am taking things to literally, but that is not the problem. You are reading to much into things, and have anchored yourself to a failing unprovable theory about how it's all just a mental projection.

It's no more unprovable than your theory, and a helluva lot more sensible.

Byteman Wrote:He is not mentally urging his program on, he is conversing with Clu, it is a back and forth communication. I'm not arguing that the cut to the game-grid for Clu's perspective, in fact it proves my point. They exist as conscious, perceptive, intelligent entities before Flynn arrives, thus completely debunking your "metaphor" theory.

Sounds more like you're unwilling or incapable of accepting the idea that the imagery we see in a film isn't always literal reality. You must not do well with symbolism or allegory or abstract expression in media in general if that's the only way you can interpret things.

Byteman Wrote:Bit thinks Flynn is his program, because Flynn looks like Clu. This proves programs had "humanoid" appearances before Flynn gets there, putting yet another nail in the coffin of your theory.

What does "look like" mean in that context? Remember that the programs Users write always have a little of the User within them, as alluded to by Dr. Gibbs. That's why programs resemble their Users - they're all invested with a little of their maker's essence, whether you want to view that in metaphysical, spiritual terms or more concrete ones. Flynn looked like Clu because Flynn was Clu's creator, and the similarity there was one that the bit responded to. (We don't even know if the bit could "see" in the same sense that a human can.)

Byteman Wrote:All "humanoid" programs have AI, the MCP is special due to it's ability to appropriate other programs.

You have no evidence for this. Show me a single scene where you saw a program other than the MCP clearly exhibit AI-like attributes in the real world. Not scenes where we cut from the real world to a view within the system. A real-world scene where someone has an actual conversation - talking in natural english, not pseudocode - with a program, and its responses show that it's self-aware and humanlike.

You can't, because there is no such scene.

If the filmmakers had intended to establish that these programs were all super-AI's, there would have been.

Face it, man. You're wrong.

Byteman Wrote:BTW, you failed to answer the question, or intentionally dodged it.

What command is "You are dogged and relentless" supposed to metaphorically represent?

I did neither. I gave you an explanation. It wasn't supposed to represent a specific command, because that's not how metaphors work. The fact that you don't seem to understand this, that the whole concept of "a person's intent and desire combined with the instructions they're typing in the real world is felt by a program in the digital world as the disembodied voice of their User/personal deity urging them on" is something so hard for you to get your head around that you'll grasp at any straw to deny it, is a big part of the reason I feel this discussion's going nowhere.

Byteman Wrote:Yeah, you can go ahead and drop the condescending tone. There is nothing you are going to tell me about the early days of modern computing...I lived them.

So have I. And it's ironic that you'd say that, given how condescending and borderline obnoxious you've been in your posts so far.

Byteman Wrote:Nothing I said strips Tron of it's "wonder", it only removes the ridiculous and pretentious over-interpretations of people like you.

And replaces them with a load of horseshit about sentient AI's and consumer ultracomputers in the 1980's that the movie never hints at, not even by implication. You think your attempt at an explanation's less ridiculous? Really?

Sad that we're at the point where somebody saying "hey, this is metaphorical, and wasn't meant to be taken as literal reality" is considered "ridiculous and pretentious".

Byteman Wrote:Also, I'm not saying that Flynn created a super-AI hacking program, I'm saying they have AI licked and all programs have it. That is why they can use plain language to communicate with them.

Tron already takes place in a world where they have perfected matter-energy conversion, artificial intelligence, artificial emotion, and even touchscreens. There is nothing ridiculous about concluding that their hardware and programming techniques are way ahead of what we have even now. You only say so, because you have a penchant for trying to exaggerate what I say to discredit my interpretation.

I don't have to exaggerate anything. Your interpretation's flawed enough to fail quite nicely on its own.

Tron takes place in a world where one company is working on an experimental matter-to-energy conversion project, the only true AI we ever see is the MCP (though feel free to point me to the scene where we see Flynn and Clu have a chat that looks like a conversation between two people over AIM in the real world and I'll concede your point), and we had touchscreen technology back in the 80's, even if it wasn't a commonplace consumer thing back then.

Byteman Wrote:You should watch South Park season 14, episode 2. It's all about you.

I'm guessing that's an insult. You really have a bug up your ass about this, don't you?

Byteman Wrote:It's not my evidence, it's THE evidence and it's right on screen for all to see.

Grasping at straws is proposing a completely unsupported "it's all a metaphor" theory and then ignoring evidence like a petulant child that doesn't get it's way. The cabinet art is proof that the computer world is in part, a result of direct programmer influence. You don't like it, too bad...your refusal to consider it doesn't make it go away.

It's "grasping at straws" because production gaffes like that are known to happen in movies, and putting the same weight on the detail of an incidental prop that appears in one shot as you would on dialogue and events in the movie is ridiculous.

My alternate interpretation: You're so desperate to find any evidence to support your misconceptions that you'll seize on even the tiniest of incidental details, no matter how dubious, that can be warped to fit. According to Flynn's desk/monitor, the system at the arcade was an i386-based machine running a flavor of Unix. Not the stuff of some hypothetical ubercomputer. That shoots your argument to hell and gone, but I wasn't bringing it into the debate because it's a production detail, similar to the cabinet art. So is that admissible as evidence, too?

Byteman Wrote:The only person who is confused here is you. You have confused Tron for a mind-bending piece of high-literature that must be read into for it's "true" meaning. When really, it's a fun fantasy that should be taken more or less at face value. Sure, there might be a nod here or there to "deep" ideas, but it's mostly about a guy who got sucked into the computer world and has to fight his way out.

Sounds more to me like you're one of those raving anti-intellectual types who finds the idea of simple metaphors in a movie offensively highbrow.

Your argument boils down to, "Supercomputers and advanced AI must be an everyday thing in the Tron world because I can't conceive of the digital world being anything less than a literal representation of the world within our computers." Which means that as far as I'm concerned, you've got the imagination of a large turnip.

Byteman Wrote:]We do NOT agree that the computer world is metaphorical. Do not speak for me again.

Or you'll do what? Refuse to speak to me? At this point, I think I'd consider that a win.

And go back and reread that. I said that the world within the computer was something that existed before Flynn arrived and persisted after he left, and that this was something we both agreed on. Coming at me with that high-handed attitude when you don't even know what you're objecting to really doesn't make you look very good here.

Byteman Wrote:The computer world is a partially a representation of the hardware, and partially purposeful programmer/MCP influence. There is nothing abstract about it.

"I'm going to have to put you on the Game-Grid" -MCP

Already addressed elsewhere in my posts. You're dead wrong. Again.

Byteman Wrote:You said that Flynn was confused about WHERE he was, I said no...he was only in DISBELIEF about where he was.

I posted that quote to prove my point. So you restating it in a different way doesn't mean you got one over on me. I fail to see what your attempting here, except maybe to make it look like I was wrong about something when really, I was proving you wrong.

No, you were trying (ineffectually) to prove me wrong. If you don't see what I'm saying, go back and read your original post, then reread my response to it.

Byteman Wrote:No, it's not metaphorical.

I'm not gonna keep listing the same reason why over and over. It is not metaphorical, I proved it with on-screen evidence. You ignore it because it proves you wrong...the end.

You haven't proven a thing. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.

Byteman Wrote:
I never said more than one copy of a program couldn't exist. The guards prove that multiple copies of one program can exist.

This is just you making up things to pretend I said, again to discredit me.

You discredit yourself further with every post you make.

I never claimed you said that multiple copies of a program couldn't exist. I said that the battle we saw taking place within the Light Cycles machine wasn't automatically taking place in Encom's server just because we saw Sark there. Perhaps there's a copy of Sark "in" every Light Cycles machine, as part of the code there. Makes more sense than assuming that they're all networked to this cyberspace supercomputer at Encom.

Byteman Wrote:Real life technology limits don't apply to the Tron universe. You say I am too literal, but then you refuse to accept anything but factual 1980's technology.

Hypocrite.

A world where such advanced computer technology was commonplace would have been transformed in amazing ways. It would have been a sci-fi alternate present that hardly resembled the 80's we knew. By 2010, the world probably would have been unrecognizable - it would have looked more like the Grid than our own world. Obviously that wasn't the case in Legacy. I can accept a major company with its own R&D division having some amazing hardware, but you'd rather pretend that the movie's taking place in some alternate 80's with Max Headroom-esque computer technology than admit that the first movie wasn't intended as a journey into some literal cyberspace simulation because you were bitten by a metaphor as a child. That's kind of ridiculous.

Byteman Wrote:You are making up a fake history of the MCP, to try (and fail) to prove your point.

Bullshit.

We know the MCP was a program. We know it was originally written by Dillinger, and that Dillinger regretted programming it to "want too much". We also know that it's been absorbing other programs into itself, and that it's gotten "2415 times smarter since [it was written]". While it's not explicitly stated, it's hardly a logical leap to assume the two are connected.

Byteman Wrote:Also, as far as things with no evidence. Your "projection metaphor" theory has no evidence and yet you keep going on about it. You are a hypocrite for critiquing me for something you perceive as having no evidence (you are actually ignoring it) while promoting your own baseless idea.

The entire movie is the evidence - both what's explicitly shown and what is explicitly omitted. There is pointedly no reference to the widespread use and everyday acceptance of AI in the world of the original Tron.

Byteman Wrote:Your interpretation is nonsense. You have no proof, no evidence, you cannot point to one single on-screen moment or line that shows your idea is correct.

My interpretation is actually based on what I see on the screen. Not pretentious and over-analytical, and unproven ideas I completely made up with no evidence to support them.

No, your interpretation isn't pretentious or overanalytical. It's just absurd and nonsensical, a desperate scramble to try to explain everything that takes place in the movie in terms of a literal cyberspace that introduces more questions than it answers because you can't conceive of anything else.

Byteman Wrote:
Easier doesn't mean correct. Occam's Razor does not rule the cosmos or the scales of truth.

Also, you are not working with any evidence. You are making up a theory from nothing, and then ignoring evidence that proves you wrong.

I am drawing conclusions based on things I see on screen only.
You are making claims based on absolutely nothing but your own idea.

You're drawing conclusions based only on things that are explicitly spelled out. You can't seem to accept the idea that not everything is meant to be spelled out, and that sometimes the dots are put out there by screenwriters with the intention of the viewer connecting them themselves.

Byteman Wrote:I couldn't care less about what you take issue with. You put words in my mouth, and exaggerate what I say to make me look ridiculous. You use questionable debate tactics to make yourself look correct, when really the issue you're addressing and causing to look wrong, is proof that you are not correct. You ignore direct on-screen evidence that you are wrong. You are a hypocrite.

No, you're making yourself look ridiculous. You become upset when people follow your ideas out to their logical conclusion, and whine about how they're putting words in your mouth. I'm not causing what you say to "look wrong", I'm pointing out where you are wrong. Sorry you're bothered by that, but that's the way it goes.

Byteman Wrote:Three words...

Solar Sailor Simulator

I leave it to you and your made-up, basless, metaphor clogged mind, to figure out how that answers your question.

Solar sailer simulation. A simulation running on Encom's mainframe. Which wouldn't require anything close to virtual world-levels of modeling and visualization to test the craft's performance and deliver worthwhile results to engineers in the real world. Which I explained up there, leading me to suspect you're just skimming my posts instead of actually reading them.

Byteman Wrote:
I am not operating under assumptions, I am drawing conclusions from what I see on-screen.

You are the one operating under assumptions, that have no basis in anything seen on-screen.

You have no right calling me adversarial. When you use hypocrisy, and slimy tactics to attack me on a personal level and make me look like a ridiculous exaggerator.

There is no headache, you just need to let go of your over-analytical stance.

I'm sure the plot holes and logic problems of any movie would vanish for people if they'd just "let go of their overanalytical stance". Just ooh and ahh at the pretty pictures and big explosions. Don't strain your brain. Thinking about movies is for them durn inter-lek-chuls with their fancy metaphors, and we don't want to be like those people, right?

Now go ahead and whine at me about how I just slandered you horribly, after spending a good chunk of your post implying exactly that. And I don't have a whole lot of respect for people who think that way, either.

And I have every right in the world to call you adversarial, because you are adversarial. You've been confrontational with me from the get-go. Why shouldn't I call a spade a spade?


Byteman Wrote:You are the only one not getting it.

You have no evidence for your failing hypothesis.
I stick to what is on-screen.

Except that you're not.

You're positing that all these programs are actually AI's.

There is no onscreen evidence of this.
None.
Once again, I invite you to point me to the scene where a program other than the MCP has an actual conversation with a User in the real world from the perspective of the User. Not cutting from the User typing commands in the real world to the program's POV. All from the User's perspective, like Dillinger's conversations with the MCP.

You can't, because there aren't any.

There aren't any because those programs aren't AI's, so they can't have chats with their Users.

Byteman Wrote:Tron wasn't meant to look like the 80's. It only looks like the 80's, because that was when it was filmed. If that is why you think they are "stuck" on real 80's technology you have based your reason on fallacy. Also, it's fantasy movie that isn't stuck on real technology levels.

Something else you continually fail to realize.

So I guess that's why Star Trek: The Motion Picture looks like it took place in 1979... oh wait.

Are you really so lacking in imagination that you can't imagine how much the world would have changed if the kind of computing power and AI you're talking about was commonplace? It would have changed everything beyond recognition. The world wasn't changed beyond recognition in Tron or Tron: Legacy, so it logically follows that AI and ultra-advanced computing technology wasn't commonplace. Your argument fails.

And then you try to play the "it's fantasy" card? Wow. Just... wow.

Byteman Wrote:You see it when Bit isn't answering questions.

Interesting interpretation, though I'm more inclined to think that the bit's just returning a result when polled by its program, rather than this reflecting a third, indeterminate state.

Byteman Wrote:Yes, there is a huge difference. I never said otherwise, this is you again trying to discredit me by stating something ridiculous on my behalf.

Anyways, your description of how they digitize things is only your assumption. The franchise bears out that they can indeed construct something physical from digital information.

You said that if they can reconstruct something from digital information, it means that they can also create digital objects for living objects from scratch. You said that, not me. I pointed out that the second is a much more difficult proposition than the first, and that being able to digitize someone wouldn't automatically make it possible to create people or objects from whole cloth. It's like saying that being able to record a symphony and play it back automatically means you'll know how to create one from scratch, too.

And my description of how they digitize things isn't "only my assumption". That's how Dr. Gibbs described the operation of the laser in the first movie. "While the laser is dismantling the molecular structure of the object, the computer maps out a holographic model of it. The molecules themselves are suspended in the laser beam. Then the computer reads the model back out, the molecules go back into place, and... voila!" Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Byteman Wrote:You are hypocritically making sweeping assumptions about the nature of the computer world. Based on nothing but your own personal idea.

I am not making sweeping assumptions, their tech is obviously better. Concluded from actual on-screen evidence.

No, it's you who are making sweeping assumptions about the nature of things in the Tron world. "In the Tron world, we've mastered creating AI! Their everyday computers are all hypercomputers capable of running AI's with ease! Yet somehow, for some inexplicable reason, everything else in the world still looks identical to the 1982 we knew! But that's because... um... it's a fantasy, so it's stupid to try explaining it anyway!" Because the alternative - that this is some sort of metaphorical look at the world inside our computers, meaning that it doesn't have to be a literal simulation running on some hypothetical super-hardware and can take place with regular programs and ordinary computers - is so personally repugnant to you that you'll go to any lengths to reject it. Gotta stick it to the inter-lek-shuls, right?

Byteman Wrote:I could care less what their job is, they could paint perfect companion pieces to the Mona Lisa...wouldn't make them genuine.

If Disney says SR's work on the IP is canon, it's canon. We don't get to make that call.

Byteman Wrote:
Again, being the protagonist doesn't mean they are also the hero.

Again, that doesn't make my point any less valid.

Byteman Wrote:Well, surviving a point-blank explosion is a much harder sell then him drowning but not derezzing, as a come-back in the next movie. IMO.

True, and it doesn't matter now anyway, since we got what we got. I'm more interested in seeing what they do from here.

Byteman Wrote:Anyways...
I have no more reason to participate in this topic.

You think you're unproven metaphor world is correct.
I think my conclusions based on what I see on the screen is correct.

We simply will not agree, so I won't waste anymore time going over it.

You're right. I think your interpretation of the original Tron, and the underlying assumptions about the Tron world that are needed for it to make it work, are ridiculous. Debating it with you any further is pointless. Let's agree to disagree.



 
CorrupTron
User

Posts: 609
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Friday, March, 11, 2011 8:16 PM
Dude nobody is going to read your long winded arguments.


 
Argent
User

Posts: 274
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Friday, March, 11, 2011 8:30 PM
CorrupTron Wrote:Dude nobody is going to read your long winded arguments.


As Clu would say, "It wasn't meant for them."

The guy wanted to debate with me point-for-point, so I responded the same way. It was intended for him. If you're not interested, no one's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.where to buy abortion pill ordering abortion pills to be shipped to house buy abortion pill onlineabortion pills online abortion questions cytotec abortion


 
Ram64
User

Posts: 183
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Sunday, April, 10, 2011 12:45 AM
PROGRAMS ESCAPING TO THE REAL WORLD
Another issue I had with Legacy was the whole "programs manifesting in the real world" thing. I can accept the idea of someone being digitized, Tron-style. The scanning laser measures the state and position of each atom as it breaks down the target, creating a digital template that's used to reassemble it? No problem. Star Trek's transporters have been doing more or less the same thing for decades. I can buy the idea of that digital template somehow being conscious and aware while stored in the computer, and able to interact with the programs there as people. That's what Tron was all about. The problem arises when you try to go in the opposite direction.

aaaah, my friend. this is a complaint I hear a lot. you see, the laser breaks down people into data, and sends it back. The people are not still people in the computer, they are data, like the rest of it. so if the laser can send a human who became data into human form and back to earth, why can it not just take what has always been data, and send IT back?

P.S.
I am NOT justifying this movie. I HATED it!



 
Darth Tronage
User

Posts: 253
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Sunday, April, 10, 2011 11:01 AM
Wow! How did I miss this thread? I guess I'm not in here as much. Legacy's buzz had me excited but concerned. But now between life being busy and the film being less than I hoped, I've not been here as much. But still, how did I miss this?! Argent, I'm with you 100%.

You've articulated a lot of what I was feeling better than I could. For me, unless the sequel proves otherwise, the true Tron universe is dead. And given the new direction they've taken Tron, I doubt the next one will be any different. I would have settled for an cg animated series or a B-rated Tron sequel that was true to the original Tron than what we got in Legacy. Basically, Tron 2.0 but with slightly updated graphics for the character animation and they'd have the perfect weekly cg animated tv series on Disney channel or Cartoon network. Kind of like the Clone Wars series. But it is what it is. The end of an era, I guess.where to buy abortion pill http://blog.bitimpulse.com/template/default.aspx?abortion-types buy abortion pill online

Jet Lives!
 
Kat
User

Posts: 2,388
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Sunday, April, 10, 2011 12:05 PM
New topic, but, something that has kinda bothered me ever since I first saw the film is some of the emotional lacking.

We have a lot of emotion when SF and KF separate at the end. However. We have this whole scene where Tron not only turns good again, but sacrifices himself for KF once again, and there is no mention of that having any gravity in anyone's mind. I know, that part is all about action and you don't want to get into a whole lot of emotional exposition, but really, find a way to mention SOMETHING? I mean, they definitely make it so we-the-audience are supposed to get emotionally involved--Rinz changing colors??? OMG--but the characters don't seem to give a rat's ass. I mean, what was that? "Oh yeah, well, it's Tron, it's what he's supposed to do"? "It's about time he did something right after all that time he spent as Rinzler being an asshole, serves him right"?

Then at the very end...Sam's just watched his dad die for him, and the attitude is all "okay dude, so let's go look at a sunrise yay!" I suppose they were trying to get across some idea of turning over a new leaf and hope and perhaps even Sam/Quorra having this attitude of "it was what he wanted so I'm at peace with that" but I just found it unrealistic. I mean, if you've just had your whole world turned upside down for the last several hours, nearly died several times, found out your dad wasn't dead and then watched him die, and found yourself suddenly the guardian of some chick who knows nothing about what the real world is about (or in Q's case: the world you've always known is destroyed or at least partly destroyed and you may not be able to go back, the dude you've been seeing as a friend/mentor/possible father figure for a thousand years is dead, and you're thrown into some strange new world you're stuck in, with some guy you barely know even if you DO think he's kinda cute)....wouldn't you think the first thing you would do is sit down and say "holy shit...what is going on, what are we going to do, my emotions are totally screwed up right now" instead of "well, yep, guess we're saving the world and everything is peachy woohoo!"

Again, I know. They had specific things they wanted to accomplish, it was the end of the movie and it was supposed to end happy, they didn't want to get caught in some whole emotional quagmire at that point, maybe we're supposed to imagine they went home and boo-hoo'd over it later. But...to make it look like nobody cares?? Really???

What do you want? I'm busy.


Program, please!


Chaos.... good news.
 
mastercilinder
User

Posts: 399
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Sunday, April, 10, 2011 1:09 PM
(sigh) You have some pretty excellent points . . .

I can't pretend I can explain away all of T:L's problems, but I will say this

I can't assume much, but I think Flynn was trying to develop the Grid into something more than just his piece of the computer world. Maybe Flynn was attempting to build a utopia where pregrams and users could sort of work together and in the process he ended up creating things fairly close to their real-world counterparts.

This is assuming alot, but maybe he was creating some sort of user/program comfort zone . . .

As for your complaint about the ISO's . . . I think Flynn wanted to use them as some sort of basis for a form of creatable people. Flynn talked about medicine and all that, maybe using ISO DNA (code) he could digitize people inside to sort of heal them the same way he could heal Quorra's arm or just convince people that living in the computer would be the next advancement in technology.


I also don't think any program could just come out of the laser and be a perfect real world representation. I believe that because Quorra was an ISO, it was the only way it could work. (I.E. Iso's are close to human) I think Clu just had an unsatisfiable curousity about the real world due to Flynn talking about it. Clu just ignored any other possibility because his personal curiousity was too strong, and he needed his army to get to that point. I bet he would get there and just ditch his forces to see the real world . . .

. . . and then he would end up being destroyed or malfunctioning because he was a program trying to enter the real world and not any kind of user.

I cannot however explain reintergration. Perhaps Clu's mirror creation is an anomaly, meanig Clu was a once in a lifetime thing and that he couldn't work properly if Flynn wasn't there.

Again, I assume much, I can't explain anything and I really do not have time to be as detailed as the OP. I just wanted my two cents to be considered.
abortion pills online abortion pill online purchase cytotec abortion


 
xQuorrax
User

Posts: 48
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Monday, April, 11, 2011 12:34 AM
Kat Wrote:New topic, but, something that has kinda bothered me ever since I first saw the film is some of the emotional lacking.

We have a lot of emotion when SF and KF separate at the end. However. We have this whole scene where Tron not only turns good again, but sacrifices himself for KF once again, and there is no mention of that having any gravity in anyone's mind. I know, that part is all about action and you don't want to get into a whole lot of emotional exposition, but really, find a way to mention SOMETHING? I mean, they definitely make it so we-the-audience are supposed to get emotionally involved--Rinz changing colors??? OMG--but the characters don't seem to give a rat's ass. I mean, what was that? "Oh yeah, well, it's Tron, it's what he's supposed to do"? "It's about time he did something right after all that time he spent as Rinzler being an asshole, serves him right"?

Then at the very end...Sam's just watched his dad die for him, and the attitude is all "okay dude, so let's go look at a sunrise yay!" I suppose they were trying to get across some idea of turning over a new leaf and hope and perhaps even Sam/Quorra having this attitude of "it was what he wanted so I'm at peace with that" but I just found it unrealistic. I mean, if you've just had your whole world turned upside down for the last several hours, nearly died several times, found out your dad wasn't dead and then watched him die, and found yourself suddenly the guardian of some chick who knows nothing about what the real world is about (or in Q's case: the world you've always known is destroyed or at least partly destroyed and you may not be able to go back, the dude you've been seeing as a friend/mentor/possible father figure for a thousand years is dead, and you're thrown into some strange new world you're stuck in, with some guy you barely know even if you DO think he's kinda cute)....wouldn't you think the first thing you would do is sit down and say "holy shit...what is going on, what are we going to do, my emotions are totally screwed up right now" instead of "well, yep, guess we're saving the world and everything is peachy woohoo!"

Again, I know. They had specific things they wanted to accomplish, it was the end of the movie and it was supposed to end happy, they didn't want to get caught in some whole emotional quagmire at that point, maybe we're supposed to imagine they went home and boo-hoo'd over it later. But...to make it look like nobody cares?? Really???


I didn't grow up watching Tron. I watched T:L and that's how I got into this obsession with everything Tron. When I watched Rinzler/Tron sacrfice himself for Kevin I felt so bad, but I knew little about their history and such. Even then, however, I agree.. I was kind of stunned that there was little emotion about his sacrifice. It was only until I watched Tron, that I really understood their history but that just stunned me even more so, that there was so little reaction for losing Tron. For someone so important, someone so meaningful, for someone saving his life yet again, the reaction was.. non-existent

Now, for Sam losing his dad... man, yeah, there SHOULD have been more of reaction. I mean, honestly, I cried. A lot. Heh. But at the same time, I understand that life moves on.. and Quorra was brought out into the real world to 'save the world'. A part of me, says that Kevin wouldn't have wanted Sam to waste any time mourning over him. I believe he would have wanted Sam and Quorra to get right to work.

However, if I were Sam.. I think I would have def. had a mourning period. I couldn't get passed the fact that his father was missing for so long, then he's finally reunited with him (with BARELY any time shared), only to loss him again in the end. It's devastating.. But, Sam's reaction right before his dad dies... does say a lot. Maybe not enough, but it says something. I don't know.. maybe I'm just rambling but.. I agree with the fact that there was a lack of reaction... but at the same time.. maybe a Flynn's way of getting over tragedies is not to linger but get busy.

I could go back and forth for hours...




But, man... this thread has turned into a massive argue-fest.



 
IluthraDanar
User

Posts: 1,178
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Monday, April, 11, 2011 12:49 AM
Sam has fond his father after years of believing he just up and left. Come on, he only finds out when Flynn tells him the portal shut him in.

Watch as they get to the bridge. Quorra has to hold Sam back, Sam attacks Clu when Clu knocks Flynn down, he begs his dad to come and says he won't leave without him. Everything that kid does says I love you, Dad.

I felt badly when Flynn yells at Sam "You did enough!" and the look the kid gets..... but Flynn realizes and softens his tone with the Zen thing. They talk on the sailor, getting that old bond back again.

And remember, people mourn differently. The way Sam gets the downloaded info and puts the drive that could hold is father's essence around his neck speaks volumns to me. What, we would have wanted to watch Sam and Quorra crying on each other's shoulders?

I guess that's why I love rewatching this film. Looking for the nuances of the parts and the performances.I have heard critics, professional and non professional blast the acting of the leads, and excuse me while I curse them for the fools they are, the acting was top notch and subtle.

I'm going to bed now. :-)


Forget it, Mr High and Mighty Master Control. You aren't making me talk.


 
xQuorrax
User

Posts: 48
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Monday, April, 11, 2011 12:57 AM
IluthraDanar Wrote:
I guess that's why I love rewatching this film. Looking for the nuances of the parts and the performances.I have heard critics, professional and non professional blast the acting of the leads, and excuse me while I curse them for the fools they are, the acting was top notch and subtle.


I agree.


 
Boba Fettuccini
User

Posts: 779
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Monday, April, 11, 2011 2:21 AM
To sum up everything in this thread:



-==[ www.boba-fettuccini.com ]==-

 
Seca
User

Posts: 10
RE: My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)

on Tuesday, April, 11, 2017 10:06 PM
6 year thread resurrection. Read all posts by Argent with great interest. Very entertaining and agreed 100%.


 
FirstPrevious Page: of 5 Pages
New New Comments | Post No Change | Locked Closed
Forums 
 TRON: LEGACY 
 My issues with Tron: Legacy (Warning: LONG)