07-18-2022, 10:16 PM
40 Years Ago, Disney's Weirdest Failure Changed Sci-Fi Movies Forever
In 1982, Tron changed everything. But, at the time, almost nobody noticed.
The premise of Tron — living inside of a computer — describes many mainstream sci-fi movies and TV of the past two decades. The Matrix and Ready Player One are obvious examples, while Wreck-It Ralph and several episodes of Black Mirror also owe a great debt to Tron. Nowadays, the idea of someone entering into a virtual world feels almost like a burnt-out sci-fi cliche. But, in 1982, for a mainstream movie produced by Disney, Tron’s premise was groundbreaking.
But even more groundbreaking than the idea was the unique approach to visual effects. While The Last Starfighter would push the boundaries of computer-generated special effects two years later, Tron’s method of integrating human performers with a mostly empty virtual world was simultaneously stunning and moody as hell. While Bridges, Cindy Morgan, Bruce Boxleitner, and David Warner were shot with old-school backlighting techniques, the fact that their vehicles (LIGHT CYCLES!) and surroundings would be all digital was pretty much brand new.
This psychological dissonance is kind of a hat-trick in the context of 1982, but when you watch it now, it's more poignant. In 1982, there was no internet in a mainstream sense and the idea that a person could have a second identity in a digital realm, wasn’t just science fiction, it bordered on outright fantasy. But in 2022, many of us have our own virtual “Trons,” versions of ourselves who “fight” for our self-image, help make us seem hirable for various jobs, locate childcare, and literally everything else. And in this way, Tron is oddly more upbeat than most of the tech-paranoia sci-fi that came later. In the Tron world, there are good programs and bad programs. Everything we make in the virtual world is just a reflection of the real world, and that’s okay.
https://www.fatherly.com/entertainment/t...ary-disney
![[Image: 3ix9q.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/3ix9q.jpg)
In 1982, Tron changed everything. But, at the time, almost nobody noticed.
The premise of Tron — living inside of a computer — describes many mainstream sci-fi movies and TV of the past two decades. The Matrix and Ready Player One are obvious examples, while Wreck-It Ralph and several episodes of Black Mirror also owe a great debt to Tron. Nowadays, the idea of someone entering into a virtual world feels almost like a burnt-out sci-fi cliche. But, in 1982, for a mainstream movie produced by Disney, Tron’s premise was groundbreaking.
But even more groundbreaking than the idea was the unique approach to visual effects. While The Last Starfighter would push the boundaries of computer-generated special effects two years later, Tron’s method of integrating human performers with a mostly empty virtual world was simultaneously stunning and moody as hell. While Bridges, Cindy Morgan, Bruce Boxleitner, and David Warner were shot with old-school backlighting techniques, the fact that their vehicles (LIGHT CYCLES!) and surroundings would be all digital was pretty much brand new.
This psychological dissonance is kind of a hat-trick in the context of 1982, but when you watch it now, it's more poignant. In 1982, there was no internet in a mainstream sense and the idea that a person could have a second identity in a digital realm, wasn’t just science fiction, it bordered on outright fantasy. But in 2022, many of us have our own virtual “Trons,” versions of ourselves who “fight” for our self-image, help make us seem hirable for various jobs, locate childcare, and literally everything else. And in this way, Tron is oddly more upbeat than most of the tech-paranoia sci-fi that came later. In the Tron world, there are good programs and bad programs. Everything we make in the virtual world is just a reflection of the real world, and that’s okay.
https://www.fatherly.com/entertainment/t...ary-disney
![[Image: 20-years-later-anonews-mom-dont-sit-too-...816101.png]](https://pics.onsizzle.com/20-years-later-anonews-mom-dont-sit-too-close-to-21816101.png)