"TRON: Legacy" title and cycle.

I already knew that recapturing the mystique of the 1982 original “TRON” would be a challenge, if not an impossible feat. After seeing “TRON: Legacy”, I feel I have been proven right. Now, “TRON: Legacy” isn’t a movie I would call bad per se. However, it is a movie with problems that were too numerous for me to ignore.

This is going to be another spoiler-iffic post, so you know the drill if you haven’t seen the movie or don’t want to know about major plot points.

That being said, here are the problems I had with the movie in no specific order:

• In the original film, Flynn is zapped onto the grid and essentially becomes a program. He is automatically dressed for the part. I’m good with that. In the new film, Sam is zapped in while still in his street clothes which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It seems the whole point of that is so that we can have an unnecessary prep scene with sexy programs cutting off his clothes and suiting him up.

• So, Sam has been assigned to the game grid, all while being really confused and claiming he’s not a program. (Even the afore mentioned sexy programs say that “this one is different”.) Yet, the only way that anyone else figures out he is a user is because he gets cut and bleeds. That made no sense to me. By being zapped into the system, wouldn’t he be a program and not flesh and blood?

• When Sam and Quorra are escaping from the light cycle games, she says that they won’t be followed because the cycles can’t go off road. Hence, they are safe as Flynn’s zen pad. Yet, the bad guys certainly find them later and make it there just fine. I would think CLU would be more prepared to have given chase via some sort of flying vehicle, or would have located Flynn previously.

• My understanding of the shaky logic of the movie is that Quorra is an ISO, which is sort of like a self-occurring AI. She is, in fact, a program. This presents two issues to me. One, is how these ISOs were supposedly going to help mankind as Flynn keeps suggesting. Two, is how does she become what seems to be a real person at the end of the movie when they escape the grid? I’m alright with matter to energy ala the first movie, but the reverse is a little confounding. Quorra was never a real person to begin with.

• When Sam enters the grid, he enters through Flynn’s physical arcade and then a virtual one when he’s been zapped. Yet, the exit is all the way the hell across the system. The reasoning for this is that Flynn wanted to make sure no programs could get out, yet they also make it very clear that none of them could do that without having his identity disc. If Flynn is the only one coming and going, what’s the point of putting it so far away beyond using that solely to drive what was an already faltering plot?

• This is more of a minor gripe, but the set dressing in Flynn’s pad is really strange. He’s supposedly all zen now, and yet he has a crystal chandelier, a bowl of metal fruit and some other random stuff. Seemed like odd choices.

• While at Flynn’s pad, Flynn, Sam and Quorra all sit down to a meal. A meal? They’re f-ing digital. How does that even work? It seemed again like another needless thing added to the movie so that they could work through more exposition.

Overall, I think there were so many wasted opportunities with this film. The plot is basically CLU building an army to go out into the real world and make everything perfect. I think it would have been much more interesting as a chase movie where CLU was trying to hunt down the Flynn so that he could rule his virtual world as he saw fit.

As for the titular character, he was hardly in the damn thing and even then, you didn’t know it was TRON until pretty far into the flick. The title seemed to be kept mainly for branding purposes.

Another minor issue I had with the movie was the creepy Jeff Bridges CGI. We’re getting close to being able to create believable human CGI characters, but we’re not there yet. He just weirded me out.

Maybe I got some of the above wrong. (I did only see the movie once.) However, even upon one viewing, a movie goer should be able to understand how the world you’ve set up works. If they must see it multiple times to “get it”, then you’ve likely done something wrong unless it was the whole point of the movie. I have a feeling that wasn’t the point of “TRON: Legacy”.

This whole thing may come across as nit-picky, but I can only suspend disbelief for so long. Once you get such a conglomeration of things you’re just supposed to just accept unquestionably, it starts to eat into my enjoyment. If you’re going to create a world with its own rules, then you need to be consistent with those rules and at least offer some real explanation no matter how fantastical it might be. A good deal of the critics out there agree that the plot and logic of the film are failing and most have based a positive rating on the effects and music. I will take a good plot with shoddy effects over a terrible one with good effects any day.

“TRON: Legacy” is a mediocre film, with some cool special effects that can’t carry the weight of it. A lot of people really love it, and that’s fine by me. My guess is that there are also a lot of people enjoying it for nostalgia’s sake. I grew up with “TRON” myself, but even that couldn’t make me enjoy this movie to the level I would have liked.

End of line.

-

No! Don't do it!

I was looking back through my old blog the other day, and happened across something I wrote a few years ago. Considering my post from the other day, I thought it might be worth drudging up and having another look at. I made some tweaks to it, but otherwise, the article remains intact. Please note that I am aware there are other women in Disney films. Maybe I’ll write a companion piece, but for now, it’s mainly the most prominent women.

Enjoy…or something…

A while back I read an article is titled ‘INTERMISSION: Other side of fairy tales can be disturbing’*. It’s not alone in it’s view of some Disney movies as I’ve heard the argument many times before, but it is the most current one I’ve seen and the one I’ll make the most reference to.

In any case, to recap, during the course of the editorial the author pointed out how many of the women in Disney movies are poor role models to the modern girl. While that may be in some cases, I don’t think the editorial gave a rounded perspective on the subject.

You have to understand that in some cases the women portrayed in the movies are dated. What is relevant and acceptable for one era of time can become completely unacceptable in the next.

To begin, let’s think back to Snow White. Snow White made her mark on the world back in 1937; a time when women were still largely playing the role of house wife. In the movie, Snow White is living under the rule of a jealous stepmother and has even been demoted in her own kingdom. However, she is content to do as she’s asked without losing faith that some day things will be better, and in her case, the hope that “Someday [her] prince will come”. After all, she is still a princess. Now, while the idea of waiting for a prince to make everything better may not be an ideal way of thinking for young girls today and may not be encouraged, the idea that even though things can get bad you should still hope for the best is a good way of thinking. The author of the other editorial also said Snow White “has the cheek to tell kids to whistle while they work”. Now I don’t truly understand how that is bad. Everyone has to work sometime, and isn’t it better to be cheerful about it?

Moving on.

The next Disney heroine to come along is Cinderella in 1950. In the history of women rights during the early 1950s, there are a few advances, but no really big turning points. While in between Snow White and Cinderella you have World War II which got women involved in the workplace, it was unfortunately a rather short-lived victory after the men came home from war. So the 1950s still generally shared the view that women are more likely to be in the house. Cinderella is very much alike to Snow White, however she does not actually become a princess till the very end of the movie. As with Snow White, she is put into a bad situation by a stepmother and yet the girl continues to dream of a better life while completing all that is asked of her. Relevant for the time, but not quite the appropriate role model for modern girls. Then again, there is still the message of hope and the idea that you make the best of what you have.

After “Cinderella” came “Alice in Wonderland” in 1951. Alice’s journey is a lesson rather than a hope for her prince to come. While Alice may be female, the lesson she learns is universal: while it may be okay to have fun, sometimes you need to reign it in, and when you “give yourself very good advice” you sometimes need to follow it to avoid trouble.

Next on our list is “Sleeping Beauty” in 1959. Again, we return to a princess story. However, I see and don’t see the conflict presented in this one as far as a role model for girls is concerned. While Aurora may not do much and may get her prince in the end, that’s just it: she doesn’t do much. I see Aurora as more of a device to push the story along. She is the least seen princess in any of the movies and the plot largely revolves around the prince, the villain and the three faeries. I don’t know that she has enough screen time to really affect young girls, but as I said before, I could still see this as being the movie with the most conflict in this topic.

The next actual princess to appear in a movie doesn’t show up until 1985 in “The Black Cauldron”. Most people tend to even forget about her and the movie in general; she doesn’t even hold the lead role. However, for what parts she’s in she sets a better and bolder example for young girls.

In 1989, “The Little Mermaid” made its Disney princess splash (pun intended) with Ariel. Again, we have a princess who is a dreamer but in a much more recent Disney movie. I’ve read that she is a bad role model as she exchanges her voice for legs to go after the prince of her dreams. I’ve always viewed this movie a little differently. Unlike the other princesses, she is the one to go after the prince rather than wait for him to come after her. Yes, she goes after a prince and not a high-paying corporate position, but she still has the nerve to do what it takes to get what she wants.

Only two years later in 1991 you get “Beauty and the Beast”. Belle, as most people forget, is not a princess in any part of the movie (unless she married the Beast when we all weren’t looking). She is a free thinker and a free spirit and, like most of the heroines before her, dreams for something more. She is not, however, dreaming for a prince but rather for adventure. She finds it when she goes to rescue her father and takes his place as the Beast’s prisoner. Never does she submit to him and is in most ways his equal. Yes, she finds love in the course of the film, but she does it while he is still a Beast and not a “prince charming”. Belle would win my pick for one of the best Disney female role models.

Directly after Belle we get Jasmine in 1992 with “Aladdin”. This is another in a line of increasingly bold Disney heroines. While she is a princess, she’s not about to become a prize. She wants to find love, and again that’s never a bad thing for anyone. Aladdin may win her over in the end and rescue her, but she does all she can and without the aid of a monkey, a carpet or a genie (and against a wizard I think she holds out just fine). There is no shame in being rescued if you have already done all you can to free yourself. Everyone needs a little help sometimes.

Again, after a short break, we get another princess in 1995 with “Pocahontas”. While not a well received movie, Pocahontas does something a bit different: she saves the man she falls in love with and in the end she actually doesn’t marry him. Again, this is another Disney female that doesn’t present a poor role model as far as I can see (I don’t know what happens in the sequel, and I don’t really want to find out).

Skipping along, I’m going to combine two lesser movies with bold Disney females: “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” in 1996 and “Hercules” in 1997. Both Esmerelda and Megara are a far cry from being princesses. They both have a past and are lacking any real taste for finding a man. Both do find one, and yes, both get rescued; but again they fight off what they can. Let’s face it, Megara was human and up against the gods and other supernatural forces. Esmerelda was up against an angry mob that was more than happy to kill her for being a gypsy. Those odds look even to you? Yeah, me either.

So, not the best of role models and not the worst.

However, the next in the line up is another of my top choices for best Disney female role model. Mulan showed her face in 1998 in a movie of the same name. What doesn’t this girl do? She goes off to war to save her father, she dresses as a man to get into the army, she learns to excel in the army, she beats the Huns once, is discovered but still goes on, beats the Huns again and has a man coming to find her! Mulan presents a very determined and very real female character. She faces the odds and wins, and in the end is well received for doing so.

The next two women of note are Jane in “Tarzan” (1999) and Kida in “Atlantis” (2001). Honestly, I cannot go nearly as far in depth with these two as the movies are ones that I don’t remember well, even though I’ve watched them both at least a couple of times. I do recall though that neither female was searching for her prince, nor did either of them just wait around for rescuing. They remain a very far cry from the first Disney females.

By modern standards, the women of Disney are not always great role models. Then again, there are a lot of things out there now that aren’t great either and that don’t have the legitimate argument of being from another era to back them up. Companies still make fashion dolls and baby dolls and kitchen role play sets for little girls. Are these positive for a girl’s development into a modern, independent woman? Why is it always that Disney princesses are thrown under the bus for negatively influencing girls? You have to realize that watching “Snow White” should be no different from watching something like “Wizard of Oz”. They are from a different moment in time and won’t always be reflective of our “modern” sensibilities. Take the films for what they are and work towards making the influences of tomorrow what you think they should be. As Andy Warhol once said: “They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”

*Since this blog was from so many years back, I no longer have a link to the referenced article.

-

Possibly the last?

I recently read an article that I found a bit depressing, which said that Disney was closing shop on producing any faerie tale features for the foreseeable future. Essentially, they said they weren’t hitting the mark when it came to getting an audience outside of little girls. It also noted that while “The Princess and the Frog” was critically acclaimed, it was one of the poorest performers of Disney’s more recent faerie tales. However, I don’t think all of the blame can be placed on the genre of faerie tales and the idea that it’s burned out.

Disney has gotten dumped on a lot in recent years for the animated films they’ve been churning out. Disney hasn’t felt like Disney for a while it seems. “The Princess and the Frog” was the closest return to it that I’ve seen in a long time. Now, I’m not talking solely about a return to the princess line, I mean a return to the sort of enjoyable family movies that Disney has come to stand for over the years. Recent Disney films like “Bolt” just seem to be missing something.

I also think some people have unfairly bagged on Disney’s faerie tales in particular for a number of reasons. I believe one of the biggest reasons is that they don’t think about when the film was made. Historically, the Disney princesses/faerie tales have reflected the general mentality of whatever era they hit the silver screen in. This is why some parents get upset about characters like Snow White and Cinderella being bad influences on their daughters. They don’t stop to think about when the movie was produced and what the mindset of the time was. “Enchanted” came out not that long ago and poked fun at the classic Disney stories that preceded it, but still managed to be an amazing movie with a princess that could be a role model to a modern day girl. I think it stands as proof that the genre can still be done and be very relevant. I also know a lot of men who enjoyed the film. (Of course, it helps that Amy Adams was hot.) It wasn’t just for little girls.

I don’t think Disney should start thinking to themselves, “Gee, what faerie tale should we do now?” However, I don’t think they should absolutely remove them all from the table of possible feature films. They should be looking for the movie that will be the best one to make, princess or no.

I’m personally quite anxious to see how “Tangled” turned out. I know the project was practically scrapped and restarted to get it to where it is now. I’d love to see it be another win for Disney in the faerie tale category, and that might make them take another look at a couple of other faerie tale films they decided to wipe from their slate.

I know the bigger issue is that they don’t feel that they’re reaching a male audience as much as they would like, but “faerie tale” doesn’t automatically mean there will be a princess involved. That’s far too narrow a definition. A “faerie tale” can encompass a lot of things. Just take a look at all of the stories in the Grimm’s collection for starters.

I am still pro-Disney. I grew up on it, and the films of my childhood still hold a big place in my heart. In this economy, the dollars count, but better than money (to my mind) is lasting power. There are a number of Disney movies that weren’t commercial successes when they launched, but they stuck in people’s minds and are still a part of merchandise programs today.

I hope Disney sees that faerie tales aren’t dead. Like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, they just need to be woken up again.

UPDATE: There was an update posted from Ed Catmull saying that the LA Times article was erroneous and that Disney faerie tales are “alive and well”. However, no real specifics were given. This leads me to wonder if it was solely a PR play or not. Only time will tell unfortunately.

-

Best part of the movie.

If I had to review Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland in one word, I would chose the word: boring. With a few more words in the review I could say that it was boring, with a side of boring for dipping. (I saw it in 2D, but I don’t think all of the 3D in the world would have made it any better.)

I consider myself a Tim Burton fan, and I think I was one of the few to actually enjoy Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There have been very few misses when it comes to my enjoyment of his films. Alice was a definite miss.

I wasn’t sure what to expect by way of the plot, but it was not really a reinterpretation of the classic story as I had hoped it would be. It was more like some sort of strange sequel or alternate reality.

I found myself unable to care about any of the characters. Every performance was lackluster. Depp definitely captured the “mad” in Mad Hatter, but there were times when I couldn’t understand a damn thing he was saying. There is a line between nonsense words and mumbling unintelligibly.

The White Queen (Hathaway) was supposed to be very light and ethereal, but she just came across as trying too hard. Carter’s performance as The Red Queen didn’t feel like anything new or fresh. Alice (Wasikowska) didn’t really strike me one way or another. The performance of Crispin Glover as Stayne was surprisingly better than most of the cast. At least he was effectively creepy.

The effects in the film were okay, but I found them more distracting than anything. The one stand out piece was the Cheshire Cat. He was beautifully rendered, and the character interpretation was overall marvelous. (Stephen Fry was the perfect voice actor for it.) I could have done with a lot more of him in the movie.

The ending of the film felt flat and uninspired. I think we were supposed to feel as if the character of Alice had grown because of her experiences, but the character development was so weak that there was never that sense of real life-changing accomplishment.

Even though the plot was not very true to the books, some of the elements and pacing felt very close. However, where the books draw you into the nonsense the movie pushes away.

I really don’t have much else to say. There was a point somewhere during the movie where I started spacing out from boredom in favour of visiting my own Wonderland. It was sadly more interesting than the one flickering across the screen.

Final Score: 2 out of 5.

-

This guy was the Phantom?

Sometimes it’s refreshing to visit our childhoods. Last night I feel like I got to travel back in time a little bit with the help of my old friend Condorman.

Condorman is a movie about an awkward comic book artist (Michael Crawford) who gets a chance to live out a comic book fantasy. It turns out his friend in the CIA needs a civilian to deliver some papers to the Russians, and wouldn’t you know who he picks to help out. Naturally things go awry and our unlikely artist-hero is sent on the adventure of a lifetime.

This movie had everything I could want as a kid. Espionage, comic-book action, explosions, a villain with one silver eye, crazy gadgets, “exotic” locations, and a guy dressed up like a condor. It doesn’t get much more awesome than that.

Watching the movie now, I don’t know if I would have had the same love for it if I hadn’t grown up with it. It would still be fun and entertaining, but in a different way. The plot is admittedly predictable, many of things in it don’t really make a lot of sense, and the scripting is very cheesy in places. Yet, upon re-watching it, I think that some of the cheesiness and predictability was intentional. Our hero is living out the Condorman story, so it only makes sense that it follow some of the same conventions of a comic book. Or maybe I’m trying to justify the silliness.

Regardless of any imperfections this movie may have, it left a big impact on me as a child. So much so that I was actively seeking a copy. I finally found a “decently” priced new copy from a seller on Amazon. I paid the lowest available price which was around $30, and sounded a lot better than the $50+ I was used to seeing. (Of course, knowing my luck, Disney will suddenly decide to re-release this and I’ll see it at Target for $15.)

As a final note, this was the movie that made it hard for me to believe that Michael Crawford could ever be the Phantom of the Opera. I’d listened to the soundtrack several times before anyone told me who was singing. When my mum finally broke the news to me I could only look at her slack-jawed and say “That’s Condorman singing?!”.

-