 |
| My desktop background from about a year ago. Sorry...you can't beat the original. |
I'll ignore story in this review because, unfortunately, no one who goes to see this movie is seeing it for it's script structure or storyline. I didn't have a huge problem with the story, actually. I don't think anyone is arguing that the original film isn't 10 times better (except for the fool that my friends and I heard as we left the theatre uttering the phrase "man, that was better than the original"), but they didn't remake it for story's sake. The plot was actually pretty inspired as far as "sequels that should have been made well over 2 decades ago" are concerned.
What people are going to see this film for is it's visual appeal. Of course, uberfans like myself will see it no matter what. As for the score, Daft Punk was the perfect choice. Their synthesized, arpeggiated, pulsating score is the best thing this film has going for it other than Jeff Bridges return to the role of Flynn.
Now for my real complaints.
Technically...the uncanny valley rears it's ugly head again, this time in the form of 'videogame cutscene Jeff Bridges'. Nope...It didn't work. The visual effects team that worked on Benjamin Button still has a long way to go before 70 year old Harrison Ford will be able to play himself at 30 again without freaking out the majority of film goers. If you are unfamiliar with the term "uncanny valley" as it relates to film (don't worry...even one of my very intelligent film teachers didn't know what I was talking about until I showed her), here is a good website. The short clip from 30 Rock on this page explains it all.
Uncanny Valley
It's time for the 3-D fad to die...again. It was a gimmick in the 50's and it had to die...it was a fun little gimmick again in the 80's, and it had to die. It's a gimmick again now, and it must...MUST die.
All you get with 3-D today is a good amount of F Stops down with the glasses and an overall image that's harder to focus on. Why even get the exposure right in the first place if the glasses are just going to ruin the DP's hard work?
At least this time, with Tron: Legacy, they gave us a disclaimer at the beginning, stating that a lot of the film would be in 2-D...a point which I took advantage of by taking off the glasses when they did nothing but darken the image significantly.
Now for my brief rant concerning this issue.
At this point I'm just so annoyed that they haven't yet figured out how to simply brighten the image so that you don't lose overall exposure from using the glasses. I really don't care for the fad at all; I don't think the film gains a single thing by adding dimension like that. I personally believe it will die out within the next few years. I say they should have separation and people should be able to choose between going to a 3-D movie theatre and a normal movie theatre. 3-D is one thing if it takes us in the direction of holographic entertainment (think TNG holodecks)...it's another thing if the industry is just taking advantage of everyone's consumerist mindset. My slight fear is that if this is the direction cinema is headed, then everything I'm learning at film school will be obsolete in the next 2 decades. However, I try to balance out that thought process by realising that that's as silly a thing for me to fear as it was for people to fear that still photography would be completely replaced by movies when they first became popular. 2-D film making will always be around in some form.
I do hope that isn't an overly optimistic statement.
Say what you will about Avatar (I personally only needed to see it once), but this time last year I heard James Cameron state in an interview with NPR that he made sure Avatar's 3-D version was literally only 3 or 4 dollars more worth it. I remember very clearly that they brightened the overall image, therefore not sacrificing exposure. I also remember it being very appropriate and tasteful as far as the depth and dimension was concerned. They didn't try to stick anything in your face for shock value. It was simply a film with 3 dimensions instead of 2. The question, to me, is whether or not a film is made "better" because of it.
James Cameron on NPR
NPR on the 3-D fad
Another short and interesting NPR article on 3-D
So why make movies in 3-D at all? Obviously, as my film school friend Cody Short pointed out, the whole point is money...and that's it. I can proudly say, however, that I personally haven't ever felt ripped off by a 3-D movie because I always think ahead and buy a cheaper ticket to a different movie, only to grab a pair of 3-D glasses from the 3-D glasses bin and walk into the correct theatre, or use the kiosk and buy a "senior" discounted ticket (which they never, EVER check for). I won't sneak into movies unpaid for, but I won't let them completely rip me off.
Yes...I am a huge Tron fan, so I feel that I have a right to complain. I showed up in my over sized, glow-in-the dark Tron t-shirt. Overall with Tron: Legacy, I felt just about the same as I felt leaving Indy 4, which most fans don't really count as part of the trilogy. Star Wars prequels, Indy 4, Tron 2....these are all just fun little fan flicks that have no real place in the franchises other than 90 minute homages, as far as I'm concerned.
I wish I could end this review on a positive note, but I have no choice. Of course I am well aware that the majority of people...probably a good 95%, will not care nor even think about any of these things when they go to see Tron: Legacy, or the new worthless Harry Potter movie, or those miserable, unmentionable insults to C.S. Lewis' works of art. They'll just go to be "entertained" for 90 minutes, mindlessly throwing their money straight into the machine, unaware or choosing to ignore that they are being duped, taken advantage of, and taken for a fool. Unfortunately, ignorance is bliss for the masses, and those who actually care are the ones who lose the most in the end.
