intfiction.org

Good point!


Yup. My WIP isn't settingless but I do not use any 'room' objects (or any derivatives based on 'room') to represent the setting. You're right: it's against the grain. Therein lies the challenge. 8)

Paul.

I haven't seen it. I mentioned to my wife that I'd like to see it, and she saw a preview with Olivia Wilde in it, and she drew an incorrect conclusion that resulted in her suggesting that I don't need to see it. I'm hoping I can get her to watch the original with me, and then we'll see if she changes her mind...

I don't doubt that the original was superior, despite my "hyperbolic" description of its failings. I never said it wasn't one of my favorite movies ever. If I wanted great characters or plot, I'd read a book.

But I think Daft Punk were a good choice.

I went to see it entirely for Olivia Wilde, though I also enjoyed Jeff Bridges' playful performance as an aging tech-hippie-visionary, as a kind of bonus to the Olivia Wilde movie (or, more precisely, the Olivia Wilde In That Cute Haircut movie). Plus there was something going on about computers or racing or something. Yadda-yadda Olivia Wilde yadda.

I loved the first one as a kid, for reasons redundant with others' here. Terrible, terrible movie, but I loved it. Loved the videogame, too, for that matter.

The new one was comparably forgettable as a film and I wonder if I'd have loved it as a tyke. I probably would have. Honestly I literally couldn't summarize the plot at this point, apart from mentioning Olivia Wilde again. And her hair. And a bit about Jeff Bridges. I couldn't really summarize the first one either, though, beyond "David Warner played the villain, which is never a bad choice. He was like a ... cylinder or something. Red cylinder dude."

I love both films' soundtracks.

_________________
Games, Fonts, and Font-Toys For Gamers - http://www.cumberlandgames.com

Yeah, David Warner.

Okay, I'm definitely never seeing the sequel now. Maybe I'll just get the soundtrack. And if I want Jeff Bridges I'll watch The Big Lebowski.

1. But but http://ourvaluedcustomers.blogspot.com/ ... ng-in.html
2. I've been avoiding pretty much all information about the Tron remake, because remakes in general make me sad and Tron in particular is most delightful as an artifact of a very specific culture and time period. Also, I am slightly embarrassed about my own youthful indiscretions with respect to Clothing That Glows.
But then, 3. I just looked up pictures of this "Olivia Wilde," and, eeeee.

*My* youthful indiscretions with glowing clothing began at age 30, and I'm not embarrassed at all.

Tron Legacy was halfway decent as a movie, in fact. (The original was unapologetically awful, much as I love it.)

I think some early version of the script had the potential to be a fine movie, but then three rewrites and two extra lightcycle scenes were piled on top. Interesting notes keep drifting into the story and then are never referred to again. Oh well.

If you want a condensed injection of the movie -- sans story, but with all the style points in under four minutes -- I recommend this fanvid:

http://archiveofourown.org/collections/ ... rks/240249
(Dance Dreams, by bradcpu, music by Lady Gaga and the Euthrymthics)

Watch it full-screen and full-volume.

Truly. As for 'hyperbolic', sorry -- it was just hard for me to see anything but in a characterisation of Jeff Bridges AKA original Flynn as "instantly forgettable". He's not the most original character in the world, granted, but Flynn's roguish game designer persona is one of the things I've always remembered most about the film. Tron's character was pretty memorable too in his sterling and Dudley Doright-like way. YMMV.

It's not like Tron was brilliant or anything. But as for the sequel being considered a better movie by some. Er… I disagree completely, of course -- but there's taste for ya. 8)

Paul.

Ahem: at the risk of making you feel old, and also at the risk of being accused of rampant sycophancy, I saw your Cloak of Light page when I was in eighth grade. My father had seen it somewhere and thought I'd like it, and it was one of my very first glimpses into the wide world of people doing awesome things and posting them on the internet. It made enough of an impression on me that I still remembered your name when I got to CMU and made friends with KGBers and such.

(I'm mostly just frustrated that "wearable electronics" seems to have totally stalled out on "clothing that glows," since I think there's a lot of potential beyond that. Mine look like this, by the way, but I am much more proud of the more recent electromechanical stuff, or even the fake electromechanical stuff.)

That's a clever mashup. Works very well!

The video is a perfect example of what's wrong with the state of CGI. What you're seeing onscreeen should be impressive, On some level my brain is telling me "something cool is happening," but visually it's just confusing and leaves me disappointed. Maybe it's like quality of writing in IF: more attention must be given to visual composition and editing. Just because you can have more explosions and laser blasts and swinging swords in-frame, doesn't mean you should. Just like George Lucas ruined Star Wars by losing the limitations that forced him to be artful. The original Tron took days to render seconds of footage and the live-action stuff had to be hand painted. Not only was the hand-painting beautiful, but the timestaking nature of it forced the designers to be simple and elegant. And the predominating live-action sequences required simplicity and genius in set design.

Sorry to continue the rant here, but I remember seeing some "making-of" stuff about the Matrix and I was impressed by how much of it was on real sets, with real acrobatics (and real wires). You can see the difference in the results. Same with the LoTR movies - huge amounts of effort went into choreography, costumes, sets, and miniatures, and it shows.

I didn't react that way, either to the video or the original movie.

(Note that the video is itself mashing up and compositing different shots of the movie. It's not the same visual experience, because it doesn't have the same goal.)