Interesting, but a little over-thinking, in my opinion. The movie is only like 96 minutes long; it's not like it's going to be able to address every little point, moral or otherwise.
I prefer to just accept the journey and not worry about every little thing, like: do programs go to the bathroom, and if so, how; do they have sex, and if so, how; do they need haircuts; do they need to trim their nails; do they take a shower under a stream of binary digits every morning; are there baby/infant programs; etc. I just don't care, really. And for any other unanswered questions that I do care about, I like to use my imagination. I don't need everything answered.
I'm okay with not knowing and just accepting the ride... accepting what Lisberger is focusing on
and what he wants
us to focus on and think about; rather than trying to come up with fringe cases of what the story "doesn't" explain or show us, and what are the implications of that. I don't agree with focusing on twisted analyses of, "Hmm, this gap was not properly closed, therefore it is a plot issue, therefore Flynn is evil and
is morally dark."
In the confines of this article, as a fun editorial analysis, it's fine... I'm okay with admitting it's possibly an issue for purposes of the article. But then I go back to: the movie is only 96 minutes long; what does one expect? I prefer the story, scenes and visuals that were shown during that 96 minutes. I wouldn't have wanted 20 minutes of that nixed or abbreviated just to show us 20 minutes of Flynn in the real world shutting down his arcade and initiating a global mandate to unplug every computer from the wall. (Wait, that would kill all the programs. I mean, a mandate to cease all file deletions and gaming, and back up every device with a universal power supply.) Regarding the moral issue at large, what Lisberger tries to show us (and what I've always accepted) is that Flynn is a fun-loving, caring person who would not be one for program genocide; nor would he be someone who would maliciously throw his friends under the bus, as a previous thread aimed to make us think he would do.
I disagree with this observation made in the article:
|But the characters in Tron only seem to think that this is a problem while they themselves are inside the computer having their adventures. The moment they leave, they completely ignore the fact that every program in every computer in the world is a living being capable of feeling pain.|
The moment "Flynn" leaves (not "they," by the way), the next scene (after a printer page view and Dillinger going away) is literally him flying onto a helipad and happily greeting Alan and Lora, and then the credits roll. It is not shown in the movie whether or not "Flynn" ignores every program as a living being. We simply don't know. We can infer what happened, sure, but that's different than saying Flynn for sure "ignored the fact that every program in every computer in the world is a living being capable of feeling pain." That's stretching things a little.
I guess if you take Tron Legacy into account and the related retconned stories (which I didn't feel the author was trying to do at this point), sure, there's more of a leg to stand on there. But then I just go back to: it's over-thinking things. If this is going to be a new alarmist philosophy that everyone is concerned about (I'm not saying you are, "J"), then we might as well kill the franchise off now because it will forever be a moral issue. You can't have a legit Tron movie without humans using computers and playing video games; sorry. And if we take into consideration the past thread where folks are already over-thinking Flynn, in a constructive criticism way, and painting him as some evil guy, well, then it's just, "Game over, man."
Flynn's no villain.
buy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online