From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:mo
Newsgroups: net.movies
Title: Re: TRON
Article-I.D.: ucbarpa.1789
Posted: Sat Jul 24 23:24:43 1982
Received: Tue Jul 27 02:14:14 1982

I have a rather different opinion of TRON than most of these reviews.
Contrary to what it looks like, most of the frames were rotoscoped
and not computer done.  There ARE some seminal computer graphics;
the III light-cycles and tanks are stunning!!!!  But the rest of
the movie is WRETCHED!!!!  Most of the "computerism" were in fact
just random jargon words sprinkled on already deadly-dull story
and just plain bad writing to make is sound "computerish".  
If they had INTENDED to write a narrow-market story they could
have done much better.  There would be a lot more mileage in things
like Multics "rings" and "gatekeepers" and "ringcrossings".

The most worrysome thing was Jean Ciskell's review.  He claimed that
TRON gave him new insights into computers and the people that work
with and around them.  I find that both insulting and dangerous.

If TRON were editted down into a 15 minute short showing all the
REAL computer animation, I would pay $4 to see it. As it, it
wasted my time and overall bored me to tears.

But again, some of the graphics were WONDERFUL.  Congratulations
to Robert Able, 3-I, and the other groups who contributed.

	-Mike O'Dell