|Argent Wrote:It's trying to jam these two completely disparate ideas together and somehow make them work that seriously impacts my suspension of disbelief. Handwaving the problems with the argument that it's a different system doesn't work for me - it's like saying that gravity would work differently for me if I went to Europe. Tron established some ground rules, chief among them being that every real-world program has a fully-realized living counterpart in the digital universe. Things in that realm took on forms not because anyone in the real world made a deliberate decision for them to look that way, but because a data structure here would appear as, say, a house there. Legacy seems to want us to believe something else altogether. It's like the writers couldn't find it in themselves to write within the Tron universe as established, and wanted to rework the setting into some sort of Matrix-esque thing to better suit their interests (or the perceived interests of their target audience), and to hell with what had gone before. Meh.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, T:Legacy was not simply a sequel but in fact a soft reboot. It referenced the first film for the fans, sure, but it also retconned a lot of it. That's why TRON 2.0 is not and can not be canon anymore, because the original TRON itself is only quasi-canon now. The old rules no longer apply., and trying to reconcile them is pointless. The rules have been changed.
1982 was a very different place. I know, I was there. Computers were a new, wondrous and magical thing and the flight of fancy that each and every computer had a little self-contained world in it where your programs were people was fascinating. It played on the inherent mysteriousness of computers to the average person though, and there's a good chance that a modern audience that grew up with computers as ubiquitous as televisions would balk. There's no aura of awe and mystery surrounding computers now, and a lot less room for fantasy about them.
Now as I said, I could probably come up with a plausible-sounding explanation involving quantum physics and the observer principle causing information to personify when interacting with living minds, and it might fly. But the producers were clearly concerned about the audience's ability to suspend disbelief and so updated it to involve things they knew would understand, ie virtual realities and simulations. That's actually easier to poke holes in because it's close enough to reality to contradict things we know (like no supercomputer ever built could run that sort of simulation now or in the immediate future), but to the average person it's easy enough to buy into.
If I was writing the sequel, I'd introduce the magic back into it with the quantum thingy I proposed above. I'd have Sam talk to Alan and be like "you know, there's something I don't get. How in the hell did my dad get a simulation like that to run on a 1980s mainframe? I've got video games running on brand new gear that can't even come close
." Alan would then lay the bombshell on him that it's not a simulation but in fact a world, and Flynn didn't create it, he discovered it. And he spent all his time afterwards trying to figure out how in the hell it worked.
Alan would then explain that right before things went south with CLU, Flynn believed he'd cracked it and was getting ready to reveal it to the world. He didn't want to do that until he understood enough about it to explain it to people,which is why he kept it secret for so long. He'd mentioned it briefly to Alan, "something about the quantum observer principle resulting in the personification of information when in contact with sentient minds
" and that any information system complex enough would spontaneously develop such an internal world. He'd promised a full explanation with all the scientific data he'd collected, but that never happened. Now, the only one who ever truly understood how it works is Kevin Flynn, and he's gone.
It solves the plot holes decently enough, and reconciles the two films about as smoothly as I think it's possible to. Until they do that though, consider Legacy a retcon and where it contradicts TRON, the newer information is to be taken as fact for the purposes of understanding Legacy.