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