Huh? In what sense could Tron possibly be considered a “fraud?” The CGI bits are discrete and distinctive, and there was no pretense that the other “computery” bits were anything apart from ordinary special effects. They were considered for a Best Costume Design Oscar for the program costumes; it was well understood that these were done through conventional means. (And a good thing, too, because as ground-breaking as the CGI bits were, they weren’t considered “special effects” at all… just something else inserted into the movie, and not worthy of consideration.)
Even when I was twelve, I knew that special look of the costumes and set design was just fluorescent materials and black light. Was 2001: A Space Odyssey a fraud because it wasn’t filmed in space?
I barely remember any ‘hype’ about TRON being computer animated, or any bit of it. The first movie that made a big thing about that was The Last Starfighter.
When I talk about the animation, I mean the process they went through where they would go frame by frame and make several negatives of the film and layer them for the lighting effects. I mean, of course that was a known technique, but the way they talked about it on the Making Of segments was remarkable.
I loved this movie when it came out, and still do. There have been at least a few other attempts to make sequels, hopefully this one will pan out. I wish I had my own TRON costume…, maybe I’ll make one for halloween.
I think everybody who doesn’t like Tron doesn’t understand what Tron is about. It’s a mythological, quasi-religious story. It could have been set on an alien planet, a jungle, in the past, etc. It has a timeless quality, with themes of race, slavery, redemption, faith, etc. When people say they don’t like the graphics, I say, “What graphics?”
True–it’s very much in the tradition of the Hero’s Journey. But I do think its setting is significant: if Star Wars was myth for the Space Age, Tron was intended as myth for the impending Information Age.
They have them mis-labeled on their own website Official page so you actually have to click on the second “theatrical trailer” to view the “concept animation test”.
Tron was a fascinating departure from anything else available in its own time, and remains fairly unique. But what would it mean to someone who didn’t see it at that particular age, when home computers first started becoming available for under $500? We were ready for a fantasy that computers could have a world inside of them, and Neuromancer wasn’t to come out for another two years.
The film has a certain unity that only works within the film itself. It doesn’t stand up to criticisms based on, say, how computers actually work. But within the frame of reference it sets up all the preposterousness it shows us hangs together seamlessly. The visuals – the high contrast of the clean neon lines setting off dark shapes, the garish lambent red and blue circuit-etchings pushing fuzzily through a heavy film grain, the thick shadows over gray faces – was endlessly fascinating to me long before I had ever heard of chiaroscuro. The music was as epic as any John Williams score, but lent a credible audio analog to the theme of electronic hearts and minds.
The elements of Tron taken separately are things I daresay we may take for granted here and there, especially 30 years later. Yet, somehow the likes of Tron as a whole we have never seen since.
Wow. I was a bit too old and computer-savvy (I guess) to really enjoy the first film.
I will probably get it on Blu-Ray when it released.
I hardly ever go to theaters anymore.
This probably helps a lot. I was the right age (I’m 36 now) my brothers were s bit younger, and we watched it almost weekly. My kids love the movie now too, esp. the geekier 7yo one. We will probably all want to go see the new movie if it’s good.