From Variety, The pioneering writer-director of 1982's "Tron" has sold "Soul Code," a futuristic tale he penned at the instigation of IGN hostess Jessica Chobot, to Reliant Pictures for mid-six figures.
Lisberger will direct the story of a tech pioneer who has perfected a way to download and transfer a person's memory. Script examines what happens when her memory is placed into a much younger woman's body.
"The same way 'Tron' was ahead of its time, this is way ahead of its time," said Reliant topper Thom Mount, who will tap into the shingle's credit facility with Allied Irish Bank to finance the production.
12 comments:
Okay, I understand geek/nerd nostalgia as well as the next man, and I participate frequently. I realize that it is very easy to make Space:1999 look bad, for example.
But can we just establish that TRON IS CRAP?
Sure, the idea pre-dates and foreshadows The Matrix. Sure, the concept is correspondingly "ahead of its time," with actors playing programs (sans the brilliant double-meaning used in The Matrix, where software "agents" -- which is a 1970s concept at the latest -- appear as actual "agents" with suits and sunglasses). Sure, Syd Mead designed those cars. Sure, the tinted black-and-white footage is innovative and way ahead of Nuprin commercials etc. Sure, Disney exhibited the 0.001% flexibility regarding their petrified cinematic formulae that allowed this to get made.
But it's a TERRIBLE MOVIE! It's no fun; it's badly made; David Warner sucks; Bruce Boxleitner (or however it's spelled) sucks; the story is muddy and confusing; the story is boring, etc. Whatever it is, it's certainly NOT a well-directed film.
I'm just sick of all the TRON nostalgia. It's a mediocrity; a failed experiment that flopped at the box office. It's of historical interest, of course, but that's it.
I can agree with your points but not your tone. I love Tron to death. It's like the beloved Atari version of all that followed -- made up of huge square pixels but still wonderful.
I'd say the ratio of great production design etc. to embarrasingly stupid crap etc. is better than the same ratio in The Phantom Menace.
1) My tone: when I say something's of "historical interest" that's not a dimunition of its importance. It's just a re-alignment of the criteria. For example, I'd say the same thing about Space: 1999. It's not "actually" that good but it's got history, personal history, and various cultural and cinematic elements on its side.
2) Tron has a better ratio than The Phantom Menace? Are you nuts? Tron has ONE vehicle, 100% normal (read: mediocre) photography; bad costumes; the tinted-footage achievement (aesthetically interesting) and those graph-paper chase sequences ("Genesis-planet" - level CGI, or worse, with no shadows or reflections). Phantom Menace has Coruscant, the Senate Chamber, the Pod Race, two thousand costumes, aliens, and spaceships; the most advanced compositing ever done (until Clones); two CGI main characters (pre-Gollum); David Tattersall's photography.
Just one exploding, tumbling pod-race crash is worth more than the entire bulk of TRON, from a technical (or "great production design") standpoint.
And, really, it's not that much less stupid crap in TRON. "You're going to be 'de-rezzed'?" Really?
Re-reading my original comment, I realize I was overdoing it a bit. It's better than I'm saying.
And yes, I'm grading on a straight scale rather than a curve. For example, any random ten seconds of The Empire Strikes Back beats the entire bulk of Tron. I'm not just going nuts over the computers, is my point; I'm grading against the constraints of the era
I agree with both of you guys and I'm not at all surprised by your differing opinions. Over time I have come to understand that you, Jordan, hold all film to very strict/high technical standards. My assumption is that your DVD collection only consists of all highly regarded films such as The Godfather (only parts I and II, of course!). I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that you have any guilty pleasures in that collection. That is, your high technical standards seem to prevent you from enjoying something that is arguably stupid. For example, I could watch Xanadu or Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo over and over with complete joy because they're such train wrecks. I know they're awful films but, for me, they're so bad they're good. Octo, you seem to go both ways. You will argue to death the merits of certain films (e.g., Matrix II), but you also seem to dig the silly, stupid stuff too (e.g., The Mummy). Mind you, this is not a criticism of either of you guys! I love you for all of your opinions. Nothing pleases me more than when a post, such as this one, generates a big nerdy argument.
Having said all this of course Jordan doesn’t dig Tron because; it really is a very stupid movie. Octo loves it because, despite its shortcomings, Tron ruled when we were kids and he has a soft, nostalgia spot for it. It’s like Johnny and the whole Goonies thing (shudder). I think Tron is completely silly, bit I love it and I’m glad it exists. I have the 45 (record)story, and all the action figures and trading cards. At the time no other film looked like Tron. It won’t ever win an Oscar, but it had me at “hello”.
The other night I watched "Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet". My prediction is that Jordan would hate it and Octo would enjoy the hell out of it.
Okay, all of the above might not make any sense but I just finished seeing 11 patients and I'm burnt out!
If you look at my movie library you'll see a pretty good representation of my tastes.
You're invited to judge for yourself how stringent I am (since I'm way to subjective to be able to tell and the best way to convey the nuances of my likes/dislikes is just to show you a list).
Click the buttons to sort: trilogies; genre combinations etc. Click for IMDB for movie or director; click the little oscar to see oscar categories
You will notice I have Godfather III.
I totally stick by my math. But first:
"And yes, I'm grading on a straight scale rather than a curve. For example, any random ten seconds of The Empire Strikes Back beats the entire bulk of Tron. I'm not just going nuts over the computers, is my point; I'm grading against the constraints of the era."
Each of these sentences confuses me. Is this a reference to your opening statement or the Tron/TPM comparison? How is ESB relevant? I grant that its effects were far better, but that's mostly because Tron made a point of using all those CGI effects, right? Are you saying they should have used practical effects? That's the impression I get when you say you're grading against the constraints of the era. And it does seem like you're going nuts over the computers when you say things like "'Genesis-planet' - level CGI, or worse, with no shadows or reflections" and "the most advanced compositing ever done (until Clones); two CGI main characters (pre-Gollum)."
Anyway. Octomath.
When I was a kid there were two parts of Tron I would watch over and over again: the Light Cycle battle and ensuing escape, and Flynn's wild, careening ride through that bizarre landscape on the busted Recognizer. When I got ahold of Tron on dvd I joyfully re-viewed those sequences a number of times. There is nothing, nothing in TPM to compare -- no scene that I would decide to go back and re-watch more than once for the sheer joy of it. Because that movie kills joy.
This is the core of my and Jordan's differing opinions, which I hope I gave him due credit for when I made the following comment on his excellent How to watch the Star Wars movies post:
"What is better, really, than finding the thrills in flawed pieces of art that sometimes disappoint or confuse us? It's downright noble."
Unfortunately, I've never been able to access that strength when it comes to the Star Wars prequels. Every point Jordan has made to me about the technical and artistic achievements has come at some cost to him, since in order to get me to listen to what he's saying, he has to first get me to grit my teeth and suppress my gut reaction. And that gut reaction is that all those achievements were completely wasted if the movies can't be plotted, written, directed or acted with any eye to quality. It's like Lucas shot my childhood in the knees and then said "look at this cool gun!" I can't appreciate the alleged good things that happened on their own merits, because I can't forget what it cost.
Why another Phantom Menace rant? Because Jordan suggested "it's not that much less stupid crap in TRON. 'You're going to be 'de-rezzed?' Really?"
First of all, I'll note that he does agree there's less stupid crap in Tron, but that's not the whole issue on the table here. This is probably a good time to point out what my math is about here, the good stuff/bad stuff ratio in these respective movies. Not that Tron has better production design than TPM, I never said that and I never would.
Second, Tron has the Light Cycles AND the slick tanks AND the monolithic, helicopterish Recognizers on its list of cool vehicles. You can throw in Sark's command ship and the solar sailer if you want, but they're only so-so.
Third, the Light Cycle competition, in terms of raw entertainment and fun, kicks the Pod Race's dusty ass all over the place. It's a lap race, for fuck's sake, so we have to watch the same scenery go by three times. There's a two-headed goofy alien giving us the play-by-play. Gaw.
Fourth, Tron's writing does stink pretty bad. But I thought of three genuinely funny or effective lines of Jeff Bridges's today while pondering this issue, which puts Tron three up on TPM (although maybe I'll remember a good one in TPM; it's possible). At no point does Tron stick you with a series of a half-dozen stiff conversations like TPM does before the Pod Race (the chat in Watto's shop, the chat on the balcony, the dinner chat, the chat on the phone with Obi-Wan, the chat in the back yard, the chat in the Pod Racer garage). And nothing in Tron annoys like "I think you came here to free the slaves!" or "are you an angel?"
Fifth, the disappointment. We weren't expecting anything special from Tron.
Sixth through Tenth, Jar Jar Freakin' Binks. JJB is the cast iron watermelon I get to drop on the argumentative seesaw. You can rate Jordan's notions here as a pea, a coconut or even a bowling ball and I'm still going to drop Jar Jar on my side and send that thing flying over the fence.
Anyway, it's just my opinion. Tron is pretty silly. But it's not terrible crap. TPM hits heights barely dreamed of in a movie like Tron, but I'm afraid I still feel that's it's mostly terrible crap.
[...] all those achievements were completely wasted if the movies can't be plotted, written, directed or acted with any eye to quality.
"Wasted" in terms of the movie in question, yes. "Wasted" in any other sense, no. I think this important distinction gets lost.
It's like when prequel fanboys (not like me, but the real thing; Darth Maul enthusiasts who really do admire the Star Wars prequels without reservation) angrily point out that Lucas "has the right" to go change his movies. This is frustrating because it misses the point; it's responding to an imaginary argument that nobody made. Lucas' "rights" aren't being attacked; his taste is. I have the "right" to take you to whatever restaurant I choose when you come to town. But if you have a bad time, it's my fault. Blaming me doesn't impinge my "right" to ruin your dinner with a poor choice.
Similarly, when a movie (or book or song, etc. etc.) achieves some remarkable breakthrough in terms of technical prowess (Rope, The Polar Express) or cultural taboo (Brokeback Mountain, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) or personal, nostalgic teenage zeitgeist (Grease, St. Elmo's Fire), it's just nonsense to assume that making a good movie was some "other option" that they abandoned in order to go for the breakthrough "instead," like eating dessert without finishing your broccoli. (I deliberately chose six mediocre movies which nevertheless are crucial landmarks.) Higher achievements don't require higher goals, or vice versa.
I've been grappling with this point for years and I think I've finally figured out how to say it clearly. Imagine a class assignment to write a paper. Everyone writes the paper and hands it in, and the teacher grades them. Some are good, some bad etc. Now imagine one kid whose paper is unusual: it's really bad, but the kid did something interesting or innovative, technically. Like, he's good at graphics and he laid it out nicely, with pictures and embossed borders and so on. Or he did a great cover illustration. You get the idea. (I wonder if this ever happened to anyone we know.) The kid, furthermore, is such a favorite that the teacher felt an anticipatory thrill when she got to this edge-embossed, beautifully illustrated paper with the nice typography. The thrill quickly turns to anger and disappointment when she reads the thing, and she has to give him a D- or an F. Because he didn't perform in the area where he was being graded; the task he was asked to perform. It's very nice that the thing looks the way it does, but that doesn't actually matter at all. The kid has "failed," in a literal sense; he failed to meet the only relevant standard.
Now imagine somebody else puts together a small gallery exhibit of Papers for Class: Achievements in Visual Design. (Believe it or not, this kind of thing could actually be quite popular.) They want the kid's paper, obviously, because it's so good -- the curators' eyes bug out when they see the superior typography, etc. It really is in a class by itself.
At this point the teacher re-enters the room, wagging her finger in a scolding tone. She reminds us all that the kid got a D- on the paper because it was so bad. What the hell are we doing honoring it?
"This sends the wrong message to kids," the teacher angrily contends. "You're celebrating and rewarding failure and bad judgment! I don't care how 'pretty' the pages look; it's more important to follow the rules, which say that the ARGUMENT in the paper is the only part that matters."
The teacher must take this position because there's a moral lesson: You have to prioritize your work according to somebody else's rules, if you want to be rewarded. Break the rules -- concentrate on the wrong part of the project, because it's more interesting to you or because you don't have the patience to do otherwise -- and you will be punished.
In the moral framework of a classroom or any disciplined environment, this makes perfect sense. But in the world of art everything's different. I have personally seen school notebook pages by John Lennon and Jules Feiffer and others. They take bad notes. They probably got bad grades. But I've stood in the National Gallery in London looking through leaded glass at Lennon's precious writing. The teacher can go fuck herself in this instance (and would wholeheartedly agree in retrospect) because the scale of what's happening in the boy's mind and on this piece of paper is so much vaster than that miserable Liverpool classroom.
You said that the visual/technical/sound/music/design/etc. achievements of the prequel trilogy were completely wasted if the movies can't be plotted, written, directed or acted with any eye to quality. And, to me, that sounds like the teacher I've described. You will not give him a break because it's not fair. He gets an F. He didn't do the important part. And therefore, there's just no way you can appreciate the other stuff, no matter how 100% amazing it is. To me, this is a bad choice you're making, to put it bluntly. Look at my original rant about Tron, which started this whole thing. You made exactly the same argument I'm making here: you couldn't dispute my facts (bad movie) but you didn't like my tone (summarily dismissive). I gave Tron an "F," so I couldn't join into the fun that you get out of it. It's exactly the same bad choice; everyone does it. Eat your vegetables! You're not being graded on the CGI, young man! Your job is to tell a story and if you can't be bothered with that, you'll be set straight! But I want to look at John Lennon's notebook pages.
It looks like I'm being slippery with the metaphors here, but I'm really not. Using Lennon's school notes as an example muddies the issue, because his job is to write songs, not take notes in school -- the example interferes with the metaphor and risks making my point unclear.
The Phantom Menace gets a "failing grade," is my point. The "teacher's" criteria are not foreign to us. It's the same criteria we all used when we realized that the movies are bad. I'm not dismissing the "teacher's" judgment. But I am arguing that the implications of that judgment -- the way that everything else becomes "a waste," like the decorative typography on the failing paper -- is mis-applied.
BTW I love "octomath."
Very well put, all of that. I totally am that teacher, and I will probably continue to be her when it comes to these flicks. And you're right, the technical achievements aren't wasted in the big picture, but when it comes to that particular movie, they can't balance out the failures, (and those failures are according to criteria I subject all movies to in addition to special criteria reserved for Star Wars flicks).
But I don't agree with "it's just nonsense to assume that making a good movie was some 'other option' that they abandoned in order to go for the breakthrough 'instead.'" In the wider sense you have a point; there isn't some finite amount of movie mojo for each production that must be doled out among the various aspects of the film.
But that doesn't illegitimize the idea completely, and it certianly seems to be the case with the prequels. Lucas used to be able to direct actors, but he doesn't bother anymore. His interest very clearly moved from one facet of moviemaking to another one at the expense of the first. It didn't have to be that way.
Post a Comment