Movie #63: "TRON: Legacy"
Well first off, because this just occurred to me, let's marvel at the fact that an early 80's flop with a modest but very loyal cult following has been given a gigantic, ambitious, big-budget sequel (the first of a hopeful long-running franchise) by a massive mainstream studio. Whether or not you think the movie is good, that is pretty amazing.
And all things considered, I rather liked "TRON: Legacy". I've got a soft spot for the original and given how long this film has been in development and how much Disney has been crapping itself over the film promoting it, it's much better than I expected it would be.
Of course, what I mean by this is that "Legacy" is a worthy sequel to the original "TRON". And that is to say, it's basically CGI eye-candy. It has a few interesting ideas here and there and it bothered me a little in hindsight that it didn't really play around with the interesting sci-fi concepts it easily could have. But to be honest, I didn't really expect it to (then again, it is very sad that I'm conditioned to not expect interesting sci-fi from big franchise sci-fi movies). The film takes a little bit to find it's footing, the villain's evil plan is incomprehensible, and there is an early scene that rivals Jim Hawking sky-sailboarding in "Treasure Planet" in it's hamfisted attempt to show the kids in the audience how awesome the hero is. All things considered, those weren't the things that I disliked most about this movie. If you've read this blog for a long time you probably know already what I'm going to rant about in the whole next paragraph.
There are three characters in this movie who are brought to animated life via motion capture. Two of them are little virtual TRON people, so it isn't too distracting. And of these, one of them is seen only briefly and the other is the villain so it's fine that he creeps you out a little (but oh ye Gods, when he shouts near the end... )
The third character is a person from the real world at a younger age. He looks fine at first when he faces away from us and when he is completely obscured by shadows and such. When he finally faces us, he looks terrible. Completely terrible. Like, in the same year we got the Winkelvoss twins in "The Social Network", he looks like something out of "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within". No, worse than that. He looks like he was animated by somebody who had only the most vague idea of how human cheek muscles and jawbones work but has never ever actually watched someone talk before.
But other than this, the movie is really neat. Like the original, it's got a production design that doesn't really look like anything else that has come out of Disney, and I liked it for the sheer fact that the animation in the updated TRON universe is *really* pretty (hot dang, the new lightcycle transformation sequence!) Where the first "TRON" was basically, "Look at what we can do with computer animation!", this movie is, "Look at what we can do with computer animation NOW!" I'm genuinely sad that I didn't get to see this in IMAX.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Castor. I wouldn't dream of ruining the fun by explaining who he is or what to expect from him. Just know that Michael Sheen knew exactly what kind of movie "TRON: Legacy" should have been (a big retro cheesy meal). He comes in at just the right moment (after the movie almost grinds to a halt and nearly reaches a "9" level of Young Newbie: "Let's go actually do something" Old Fart: "No, everything must stay the same" wallbangery). And he steals the show right out from under Not Sam Worthington. Remember when we first saw Jack Sparrow in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" and wondered, "how the hell did Disney let this fly?" Yep, same deal here.
Quorra's another fun character and I like how she takes the old Cute Girl Who Saves the Boring Hero meme in some different directions and the little flashes of the "things humans take for granted that an alien wouldn't quite 'get'" part of her personality. The music is amazing and overall the movie is a fun ride for fans of the original. I am actually pretty curious as to where Disney's going to take this franchise from here.
ADDENDUM: As this just hit me, months later: The weirdest thing about me reviewing "TRON: Legacy" as part of the Disney Animated Canon is the fact that CGI eye-candy is EVERYWHERE these days. So why consider "TRON" part of the Canon and not, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean"? "G-Force"? "Sorcerer's Apprentice"? You cannot deny that all these films include computer animated characters.
Well, the reason why "Legacy" (and any possible future "TRON" movies although the future looks a bit dim there right now) makes the cut is simply because it's parent did. And the one and only reason "TRON" made the cut is because Disney considered it one of their animated films in the early 80's, back when it was the most impressive recent thing they had to brag about. I don't suppose anyone is going to necessarily complain that I am not reviewing "G-Force" et al, but I supposed I ought to say something about it to cover myself.
For more posts in this ongoing series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.
----
Sketch of the Day! It's a raptor! How exciting!
Once upon a time, back in 1982, Disney released a film entitled "TRON". At the time, the film was the most extensive and advanced blending of human actors and animated elements to date. Most significantly, it used quite a bit of computer-rendered animation. This was a first in the early 80's. With acclaimed sci-fi illustrator Moebius on board, the film looked like nothing else Disney had ever done before.
And the world was not ready. "TRON" was, initially, a box office failure. Thanks to the poor returns on it and it's fellow oddball Disney sci-fi film, "The Black Hole", Disney waited for a very long time before tackling anything outside of hand-drawn animation.
However, the games spun-off from "TRON" were significant hits. Furthermore, the film was vindicated on VHS, becoming a well-loved cult favorite. Seen today, it is a little dry (this review reflects my initial opinion), but it's place in the history of cinema animation is undeniably important and it still does not look like anything else in the Disney Animated Canon.
As is their wont, Disney teased fans with the promise of a sequel starting around the late 1990's. Flash-forward to the present, where that sequel is finally arriving. Perhaps you are aware of it?
Oh Disney. This is a beautiful example of one of the reasons why I love and hate you like I love and hate myself.
"Tron: Legacy" isn't officially being released until mid-December, but Disney's hype machine has been going on about it for THREE YEARS! Three years! For those keeping count, that's three San Diego Comicons in a row!
If I have any vegetarian readers, I apologize in advance for this analogy. Usually, upon finding a cash cow, Disney will milk her to exhaustion, then sell off the good meat, then sell off the... okay meat, then sell the leathers, then sell the iffy meat, then sell the bones, then sell whatever else until only the grisly stain on the floor is left. And then they'll sell that. The difference here is that usually they will wait until something they've released becomes a cash cow (examples include "The Little Mermaid", "High School Musical", "Cars", ect.) Here, they seem to be plotting the fate of an unborn calf.
Because this year brought an epic "TRON" marketing orgy. Disney World kind of got stiffed, receiving only the "TRON"-orails (sadly, they debuted the week after my trip there this year). Disneyland on the other hand, has what is essentially a new "land" superimposed over an existing one for a nightly event, and an encore to the well-loved "World of Color" nightly show. And after the movie premiers, we're getting an animated spinoff. And, of course, third and possibly fourth "TRON" films. And a theme park ride. And some other stuff.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am actually very curious to see if Disney can make a good sequel to "TRON" twenty-eight years after the fact. However, this movie damn well better not be an expensive bomb or Disney will have some extremely rotten egg on their face. (And couldn't they spare a little of this marketing frenzy for "Tangled"? *sigh*)
----
Art of the Day! Enough about computer art (note: No, Trish does not hate computer art). Here is something done entirely by hand:
#30: "Pete's Dragon"
Better known as "The Movie That Made Don Bluth Say, 'F*** It.'"
After watching this one for the first time ever, I started to think that I was a little rash in calling the late-90's/early-00's period the Dork Age. This is the "Pretty Woman" of the Disney Animated Canon (stay with me here). The original short story told a very dark, depressing story of a little orphan boy who'd escaped from his abusive foster family and retreated into a fantasy world of magic dragons.
Something obviously got lost in the adaptation here. It's either the fact that Elliot is absolutely real from the first scene or the fact that it's a musical. On the first point, Elliot is actually invisible most of the time for no other reason than saving money on special effects. On the second point, this is the kind of musical where you half expect them to start singing, "The Front Door's a Little Sticky (You Might Have To Give It A Good Kick Open)".
Mind you, aside from the dragon and the songs, the story is still very dark, which makes for a movie that is downright manic-depressive in tone. Fortunately, Don Bluth was in charge of all the animation, and the character animation on Elliot is wonderful. Too bad we only see twenty minutes of it.
#31: "The Fox and The Hound"
If I am not mistaken, this is the very first movie I ever saw in a theater. Having watched it again, I realize that in all these years, I only had the vaguest memories of it. Mostly the fact that Glen Keane (he did much of the last act, including the bear scene) is incredible.
Man, Disney was on some drama-rama kick at this time, weren't they? This time, Richard Rich is listed as one of the Directors. While he isn't as well-known as Don Bluth, he's another Disney animator who later formed his own studio. He's best known for "The Swan Princess". His other films are very eclectic (ranging from Biblical epics to annoyingly cute versions of famous musicals and E.B. White novels), but he loves drama.
"The Fox and the Hound" has got more drama per pound than some live-action movies. It's got very little incidental music and the cheerful songs and comic relief characters are instantly forgettable. It gets lost in the shuffle of other films, but it's well worth revisiting as it may be the most mature film in the Cannon. It is, essentially, "Brokeback Mountain" with cute animals. I kid you not. Watch it again.
Incidentally, it's almost worth it to watch "The Fox and the Hound 2" trailer included on the disk just for the "WTF" factor. (I don't want to spoil it but isn't this plot right out of EVERY Disney Channel sitcom ever?)
#32: "TRON"
Well, first, I need to do the obligatory thing where you sit there and reflect on the fact that you're writing a review of "TRON" on a better computer than the one they used to animate it.
(She does this.)
Duuuude...
While it was an expensive bomb back in the day, "TRON" has since grown into a cult classic and it's easy to see why; it's overall the best out of all the movies in this time period. Thanks to the remastered DVD, it looks and sounds better than ever. Very trippy and cool, it appears as though they used a similar design aesthetic for EPCOT's Future World buildings.
Hey, did you ever notice that this movie is all about gaining evidence for a copyright infringement suit?
#33: "The Black Cauldron"
Better known as "The Movie That Made Tim Burton Say, 'F*** It.'"
Even better known as "The Movie That Almost Killed The Studio. No, really."
In production for nearly twelve years, way over budget, and the first Disney movie ever to fall victim to (dunt-dunt-daa) Executive Meddling right before it's release. New big boss Michael Eisner welcomed himself to the animators by chopping several scenes out of the finished film. (Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of animation's production process, specifically how animated features are meticulously planned from beginning to end well before anyone gets to put pencil to paper in earnest, will see how insane this was.) "Black Cauldron" bombed spectacularly in it's initial release and was kept out of circulation for decades.
When Disney finally released it on video, it was treated more as an obligation than anything. It was barely promoted and given a bare-bones release. The DVD is slightly better. At least the film is in it's original widescreen format - but it isn't anamorphic. You will learn what anamorphic means the second the movie starts, especially if you've got a 16x9 television. You'll also learn the difference between 5.1 surround sound and whatever was available in the 80's, as the soundtrack hasn't been remixed with the new technology and tends to fade in and out (I pumped up the volume to the thirties to hear the dialogue and got the sh*t scared out of me when the guard dog started barking).
For all this… I kind of liked it. Yes, it's obvious that the production was labored and plagued with problems; expect a very episodic movie. But it's a hell of a lot more interesting than the similarly-themed "Sword in the Stone" and has a far more focused plotline. It also (see what a huge difference this makes) has a great cast of villains and supporting characters. It's just bizarre how this is remembered more for what it could have been than accepted for what it is. I like The Chronicles of Prydain too and I do think a faithful film series would be quite good. But really, how come nobody levels the same kinds of "Wah, it doesn't have anything to do with the books" complaints at "The Jungle Book", or "Sword in the Stone" for that matter?
And what's Eilonwy got to do to be a part of the Princesses line?
----
Next time: The movies get good again! For more posts in this series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.
