I went in with low expectations after reading all the complaints and reviews about the plot being shallow. After leaving the film though, i was thoroughly impressed with Tron: Legacy. What "bad plot", I kept muttering to myself. "What the hell are they talking about?" Maybe this is how it feels to be a fan of Avatar.
That said, I think reviewers are completely missing the point of Tron: Legacy. So many have commented on the absent explanations being the element that ruined the film for them but so many forget that the film's technicalities were too convoluted to begin with to even begin explaining (such as how and why the grid works), so it instead told a fairly simple hero's journey. As James Berardinelli writes in his review (also, off topic, why is he considered a top reviewer on RT?), "They had 28 years, and this is the best they could come up with?" Precisely my point. They had 28 years of technical advances! How do you adapt the original Tron's explanations? You can't. Leave it to the sci-fi novels, and at times, I really felt like Tron: Legacy was an adaption of a much larger, and more complicated novel. Instead of rummaging through made-up plot science, it relished in the atmosphere, imagery, and ambiance, furthering my suspicions that Tron: Legacy was really just a sci-fi novel adaption in disguise, as adaptions of novel usually focus on the atmosphere and recreating rich personalities rather then getting bogged down in a heavy plot. I was reminded of Inception, and how that danced around its explanations in favor of telling a great story.
I am wondering if there's some part of this film that alienates people. That makes people fight back against just sitting back and letting the film entertain you. I saw one alienating plot element, the meandering narrative, but thought it was methodical, and I suppose it could be described as "boring" especially as the ending feels a bit light footed considering all the build up. Not enough "epic" action. Not enough Tron, though really, it became readily apparent that 2/3 way into the film, the plot had switched to "leading up to another sequel mode". Really, the only thing keeping me from enjoying the film, which I found engrossing in how it relished every moment of screen time it had to tantalize the eyeballs of the viewer, was Olivia Wilde. She is this perfect romantic lead and I instantly melt when she appears on screen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire film, hoping she'd make it out to reality with Sam. It was intense in that she is such an enduring actress and she nails her part so brilliantly, that her romantic escape, for me, became the entire driving force of the film.
Let's finish it up with the hivemind complaints about Sam's character (Flynn's son). He's empty and shallow, but that is ENTIRELY THE POINT. His life is lacking, and he uses his father's absence as an easy excuse. I see this all the time in other films and people seem to get it. It's father-son relationships 101. When his father asks about him, and Sam instantly seems disappointed in himself, it's because of his aimlessness. I found this to be incredibly enlightening considering this was a Disney backed film and Disney loves perfect protagonists. By the end of the film, Sam had gone through an arc. We're not suppose to like him at the beginning, we're suppose to sympathize with him.
Last bit: The screenplay for Tron: Legacy reminds me of a very millennial gen-minded process for adaption, and I wouldn't be surprised if style over substance becomes a more standard modern methodology. The only problem is, most people go to see films to be "entertained" and have no precognition of the purpose of a film besides that. It'll be interesting to see what sells, and what doesn't.
That said, I think reviewers are completely missing the point of Tron: Legacy. So many have commented on the absent explanations being the element that ruined the film for them but so many forget that the film's technicalities were too convoluted to begin with to even begin explaining (such as how and why the grid works), so it instead told a fairly simple hero's journey. As James Berardinelli writes in his review (also, off topic, why is he considered a top reviewer on RT?), "They had 28 years, and this is the best they could come up with?" Precisely my point. They had 28 years of technical advances! How do you adapt the original Tron's explanations? You can't. Leave it to the sci-fi novels, and at times, I really felt like Tron: Legacy was an adaption of a much larger, and more complicated novel. Instead of rummaging through made-up plot science, it relished in the atmosphere, imagery, and ambiance, furthering my suspicions that Tron: Legacy was really just a sci-fi novel adaption in disguise, as adaptions of novel usually focus on the atmosphere and recreating rich personalities rather then getting bogged down in a heavy plot. I was reminded of Inception, and how that danced around its explanations in favor of telling a great story.
I am wondering if there's some part of this film that alienates people. That makes people fight back against just sitting back and letting the film entertain you. I saw one alienating plot element, the meandering narrative, but thought it was methodical, and I suppose it could be described as "boring" especially as the ending feels a bit light footed considering all the build up. Not enough "epic" action. Not enough Tron, though really, it became readily apparent that 2/3 way into the film, the plot had switched to "leading up to another sequel mode". Really, the only thing keeping me from enjoying the film, which I found engrossing in how it relished every moment of screen time it had to tantalize the eyeballs of the viewer, was Olivia Wilde. She is this perfect romantic lead and I instantly melt when she appears on screen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire film, hoping she'd make it out to reality with Sam. It was intense in that she is such an enduring actress and she nails her part so brilliantly, that her romantic escape, for me, became the entire driving force of the film.
Let's finish it up with the hivemind complaints about Sam's character (Flynn's son). He's empty and shallow, but that is ENTIRELY THE POINT. His life is lacking, and he uses his father's absence as an easy excuse. I see this all the time in other films and people seem to get it. It's father-son relationships 101. When his father asks about him, and Sam instantly seems disappointed in himself, it's because of his aimlessness. I found this to be incredibly enlightening considering this was a Disney backed film and Disney loves perfect protagonists. By the end of the film, Sam had gone through an arc. We're not suppose to like him at the beginning, we're suppose to sympathize with him.
Last bit: The screenplay for Tron: Legacy reminds me of a very millennial gen-minded process for adaption, and I wouldn't be surprised if style over substance becomes a more standard modern methodology. The only problem is, most people go to see films to be "entertained" and have no precognition of the purpose of a film besides that. It'll be interesting to see what sells, and what doesn't.
Tell Your Friends