I just watched this film for the first time in several years. It was my favourite film when I was five, and was probably the reason that I became a computer programmer. I feared it may not stand up to adult scrutiny, or the effects may look dated, or the pacing may be too slow by modern standards.
I'm pleased to report this is not the case. It's a very simple story, but then so are all Hollywood movies, and can still be enjoyed by adults.
The hand drawn effects still look amazing. The computer generated ones are not so good. Mostly it works because this is supposed to be a world based on computer games so it's logical it would look like 1980s games, i.e. wireframe 3d, solid colours and glow effects. One thing that annoyed me was the shading effect on Sark's carrier. If they hadn't shaded it at all, it would have been fine, but instead they shaded it using only about five shades of grey.
The pacing is fine. I remember getting bored during the talking bits as a kid but as an adult it's fine; in fact it feels rushed.
Interesting things I noticed:
* Bruce Boxleiter has "klaatu barada nikto" on his cubicle wall.
* The map on Sark's wall shows Pacman is in the system.
* The lightcycles turn at 90 degree angles on the gamegrid, and produce solid trails, but as soon as they leave the grid the trails stop and they handle like real motorcycles. Is the handling a user configurable option, or enforced by the environment? Also the riders seem able to summon and dismiss the cycles at will for the first part of the movie, but then they don't do it anymore. Is that because they didn't want to, or did they lose the ability?
* The 'bit' has three states, not two. Maybe he is really a nibble or something?
Regardless of whether the film is actually good or not, there is something amazing about the concept that I find hard to explain. In some ways it could be seen as the first film to feature virtual reality; but the whole point is that it *isnt* a simulated reality. The computers are not drawing 3D humanoid representations of programs. We, the viewers, are being given this view of the insides of a computer. Everything that happens in the film is completely logical (allowing a little dramatic license) and could have happened on a 1982 mainframe computer. A security program (Tron) is assigned the task of deleting a virus (MCP). The MCP quarantines Tron to protect itself. Tron unquarantines itself but is unable to delete the MCP and so requests user input. The user supplies additional code needed to delete the MCP. In the movie we see Tron spend hours travelling to the I/O tower to request input. In reality it would be a fraction of a second and we'd just see a query prompt on the terminal. It's just two alternate views of the same reality.
The interesting thing is that it's not just the viewers who see the 'alternate' reality - one of the characters, Flynn, sees it and enters it. But he's the only one. So we could actually look at everything that happens in the computer world as being Flynn's hallucination - the way his brain visualises the mundane data processing as an exciting 3d battle. In that respect it's more like fantasy films where the characters hallucinate their internal psychological dramas, such as the Wizard of Oz.
I'm sure that the sequel will have better effects and action sequences. It may have a better story, or a worse one. But what I really worry about is that the writers will miss this fundamental point - that the computer world is *not* another world, it's just an alternate way of viewing what really does happen inside a computer - and instead start treating it like a Matrix-esque virtual reality world.
Possibly one of the weirdest movies that I've ever seen, yet it works. I bet it must've been mindblowing in 1982 to see those kinds of visual effects in a movie! Good one.
Ultra-generic "quest" plot, but script and acting allow the movie to remain moderately entertaining. The main reason to watch this movie is its look and design, which capture the 80s videogame aesthetic well.
It stands up. The CG effects may look primitive, but the conceit that we're inside 1980s video game graphics makes them work anyway, and given this was made in 1982, they might even have you going "how'd they do that though?". Is this the first film with digital sets? Now, it's not a particularly deep story, but rather a reason to enter a fantastical world. Despite the technological trappings, it IS fantasy (this isn't how computers work), the modern-day equivalent of Wonderland. Our hero (Jeff Bridges as Flynn, not, surprisingly enough, Bruce Boxleitner's Tron) essentially discovers this new world along with the audience and that's where the interest lies rather than in the plot. Kind of wish Flynn's insolence had translated to his virtual self more though. As is, the film's characters don't have a whole lot of dimension, which makes the graphic-heavy third act start to feel tedious. But still a remarkable technical achievement and quite watchable family fare. And Moebius designs!
I thought this movie was poor and stupid. The plot is very standard; a bunch of good guys trying to escape and ultimately killing the end-boss. You're better off watching a random James Bond-flick, or if you want do see a good movie that deals with a virtual reality or life inside a computer, watch Welt am Draht or The Matrix.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 16
RichardTolhurst
I just watched this film for the first time in several years. It was my favourite film when I was five, and was probably the reason that I became a computer programmer. I feared it may not stand up to adult scrutiny, or the effects may look dated, or the pacing may be too slow by modern standards.I'm pleased to report this is not the case. It's a very simple story, but then so are all Hollywood movies, and can still be enjoyed by adults.
The hand drawn effects still look amazing. The computer generated ones are not so good. Mostly it works because this is supposed to be a world based on computer games so it's logical it would look like 1980s games, i.e. wireframe 3d, solid colours and glow effects. One thing that annoyed me was the shading effect on Sark's carrier. If they hadn't shaded it at all, it would have been fine, but instead they shaded it using only about five shades of grey.
The pacing is fine. I remember getting bored during the talking bits as a kid but as an adult it's fine; in fact it feels rushed.
Interesting things I noticed:
* Bruce Boxleiter has "klaatu barada nikto" on his cubicle wall.
* The map on Sark's wall shows Pacman is in the system.
* The lightcycles turn at 90 degree angles on the gamegrid, and produce solid trails, but as soon as they leave the grid the trails stop and they handle like real motorcycles. Is the handling a user configurable option, or enforced by the environment? Also the riders seem able to summon and dismiss the cycles at will for the first part of the movie, but then they don't do it anymore. Is that because they didn't want to, or did they lose the ability?
* The 'bit' has three states, not two. Maybe he is really a nibble or something?
Regardless of whether the film is actually good or not, there is something amazing about the concept that I find hard to explain. In some ways it could be seen as the first film to feature virtual reality; but the whole point is that it *isnt* a simulated reality. The computers are not drawing 3D humanoid representations of programs. We, the viewers, are being given this view of the insides of a computer. Everything that happens in the film is completely logical (allowing a little dramatic license) and could have happened on a 1982 mainframe computer. A security program (Tron) is assigned the task of deleting a virus (MCP). The MCP quarantines Tron to protect itself. Tron unquarantines itself but is unable to delete the MCP and so requests user input. The user supplies additional code needed to delete the MCP. In the movie we see Tron spend hours travelling to the I/O tower to request input. In reality it would be a fraction of a second and we'd just see a query prompt on the terminal. It's just two alternate views of the same reality.
The interesting thing is that it's not just the viewers who see the 'alternate' reality - one of the characters, Flynn, sees it and enters it. But he's the only one. So we could actually look at everything that happens in the computer world as being Flynn's hallucination - the way his brain visualises the mundane data processing as an exciting 3d battle. In that respect it's more like fantasy films where the characters hallucinate their internal psychological dramas, such as the Wizard of Oz.
I'm sure that the sequel will have better effects and action sequences. It may have a better story, or a worse one. But what I really worry about is that the writers will miss this fundamental point - that the computer world is *not* another world, it's just an alternate way of viewing what really does happen inside a computer - and instead start treating it like a Matrix-esque virtual reality world.
xwizex
Still awesome 31 years later !hemefo
Now I see where South Park's weirdo Moses came from.danisanna
Possibly one of the weirdest movies that I've ever seen, yet it works. I bet it must've been mindblowing in 1982 to see those kinds of visual effects in a movie! Good one.Bill.MI.1
Tron is like a fireworks show that provides some nice visual entertainment. Maybe it is a simple story, but you know what? So was Star Wars.halcain
I love Jeff Bridges, and I wanted to love this. However, the plot was just incredibly boring.ChrisReynolds
Ultra-generic "quest" plot, but script and acting allow the movie to remain moderately entertaining. The main reason to watch this movie is its look and design, which capture the 80s videogame aesthetic well.Siskoid
It stands up. The CG effects may look primitive, but the conceit that we're inside 1980s video game graphics makes them work anyway, and given this was made in 1982, they might even have you going "how'd they do that though?". Is this the first film with digital sets? Now, it's not a particularly deep story, but rather a reason to enter a fantastical world. Despite the technological trappings, it IS fantasy (this isn't how computers work), the modern-day equivalent of Wonderland. Our hero (Jeff Bridges as Flynn, not, surprisingly enough, Bruce Boxleitner's Tron) essentially discovers this new world along with the audience and that's where the interest lies rather than in the plot. Kind of wish Flynn's insolence had translated to his virtual self more though. As is, the film's characters don't have a whole lot of dimension, which makes the graphic-heavy third act start to feel tedious. But still a remarkable technical achievement and quite watchable family fare. And Moebius designs!greenhorg
Parts of this are almost the definition of cheesy looking, parts are brilliantly creative. Most of the time it's the same shot.cangelm1
I watched Tron: Legacy first and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, so I figured I'd watch the original.I sadly wasted my time...
akuma587
Surprisingly good. I expected it to be campy and lame, but I really got into it.Scratch47
Fun! Memorable 80s aesthetic and a unique plot that struck a nerve with nerds everywhere. :Dchris714n
does not compute.. but good entertainment!TheMajor
I thought this movie was poor and stupid. The plot is very standard; a bunch of good guys trying to escape and ultimately killing the end-boss. You're better off watching a random James Bond-flick, or if you want do see a good movie that deals with a virtual reality or life inside a computer, watch Welt am Draht or The Matrix.Jumping Elephant
Legacy looks like it will be really good.Showing items 1 – 15 of 16