Tag: disney

  • Only an (AI) God Can Save Us?

    Only an (AI) God Can Save Us?

    Last Friday, my son and I attended the opening night of Tron: Ares, the third installment in the Disney computer movie franchise. (The CGI one, not The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes.) Readers of this blog are well aware of my somewhat irrational 80s-kid love for the 1982 Tron and its 2010 sequel, Tron: Legacy, so it’s no surprise that I would be on hand for its opening night, watching it in IMAX 3D, no less.

    Having watched it, I can say that while Tron: Ares is certainly a sensory spectacle, it isn’t the strongest film in the franchise, which, depending on your feelings about the first two movies, may not be saying much. Behind the sunny optimism that prevails at the end of Tron: Ares is a bleak counsel of desperate surrender in the face of the very forces that are pulling the world apart.

    ***

    Warning: Spoilers for the movie follow.

    As Tron: Ares opens, we find that ENCOM, the software company featured in the 1982 and 2010 films, is locked in a technological race with recently spawned competitor, Dillinger Systems. Both companies are in a race to develop technology that will allow them to synthesize virtually any object using modified versions of the particle lasers that, in the first two films, beam people into the virtual world. The lasers work like 3D printers, printing everything from orange trees to super-hardened military hardware, and they can even create embodied real-world avatars of programs akin to the ones that populate the virtual world of “the Grid,” the long-standing designation in the Tron universe for the inner world located inside computer networks.

    There is one catch to this amazing synthesizing technology, though: both companies have hit a theoretical limit for how long their creations can endure in the real world. After twenty-nine minutes, the created objects, no matter how simple or complicated they are, crumble into pixelated dust.

    However, ENCOM and its young CEO Eve Kim (Greta Lee), have an advantage: they know where to find the “Permanence Code” that would allow these synthesized objects to last indefinitely. Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters), the whiny, temperamental CEO of ENCOM rival Dillinger Systems, desperate to win lucrative military contracts, will stop at nothing to get the Permanence Code from Kim. So, Dillinger fires up his 3D-printing laser matrix, works up avatars of his master control program, Ares (Jared Leto), and Ares’ chief lieutenant, Athena (Jodie Turner-Smith), and sends them to collect the code from Kim. (In twenty-nine minutes or less, of course.)

    Here, though, Ares begins to have realizations that Dillinger didn’t prepare for. Ares is an AI computer program, and in the course of his training (since our current expectations of AI is that it has to be trained iteratively) he has developed curiosity about the real world as well as feelings, and more than anything a desire to be something more than just a program carrying out the imperatives of Dillinger. Dillinger, though, makes it clear that however much he values Ares’s support, he views Ares himself as expendable, and Dillinger obtaining the Permanence Code will not change that. So, rather than execute Dillinger’s order, Ares abruptly changes sides and joins forces with Kim to keep the Permanence Code out of Dillinger’s hands.

    Jeff Bridges’ Kevin Flynn lives (sort of).

    After a fairly convoluted series of events, which include Kim and ENCOM beaming Ares into the preserved Grid from the original 1982 Tron (silly but fun for the fans) and becoming himself imbued with the Permanence Code by the preserved avatar of no less than Kevin Flynn himself (Jeff Bridges, reprising his role in the first two Tron films with the same gee-whiz tics he’s been using since 1982), Ares returns to the real world as a messianic figure. The change registers visually by the neon highlights on Ares’s suit turning from red to white, much like Gandalf the Grey returning from the other side of death as Gandalf the White. But the movie has tried to telegraph this messianic moment from the very beginning; Jared Leto’s Ares spends the entire film with shoulder-length hair and a beard that makes him look like a youth pastor at a seeker-sensitive church cosplaying Jesus, after all. Permanence Ares, together with Kim, ultimately save the day, Dillinger’s world crumbles around him, and order is restored. Kim and ENCOM go on to use the Permanence Code to synthesize, not military hardware and supersoldiers, but instead things that solve the problems of humanity—feeding the hungry, curing cancer, things like that. All’s well that ends well!

    ***

    There is a certain techno-optimism baked into the basic premise of all of the Tron movies that is hard to maintain in the enshittified world of 2025. In this sense, Tron: Ares is as much a victim of the desperately long timeframe it took to move from development to production as anything. Older, more quaint techno-optimism notwithstanding, the core of the thematic appeal (such as it is) of the first two movies is a search for transcendence beyond technology. At the core of the original Tron movie is the struggle against the nakedly totalitarian Master Control Program, whose mission is to usurp the role of the human users and to bend all computer programs to its will. (True to its roots in the Cold War Reagan-era United States, Tron represents the MCP as ideologically bent on destroying the “religion” of the users, much like the aims of the religion-destroying Soviet Union as reflected in Western propaganda. The MCP’s lieutenants and minions even glow red.) Tron and Flynn win out over the MCP and hence restore the natural subservience of program to user to the Grid. The “religion of the user” flourishes once again, and programs are once again just useful tools for humans to use.

    Sark from the 1982 Tron (David Warner) is an apparatchik for the techno-Stalinist MCP.

    Tron: Legacy takes the same theme in a new direction. Now it is Kevin Flynn, the hero of Tron, who has succumbed to the proto-totalitiarian impulse to create what he terms the “perfect system” that will (somehow) help humanity to overcome the imperfections of the real world. He disappeared in 1989, leaving behind his son, Sam Flynn, to grow up fatherless and alienated. In the course of following up clues as to his father’s ultimate whereabouts, Sam learns where his father is, why he left, and what he has learned in the course of his enforced captivity inside his own Grid. He has learned that his desire to implement the perfect system, implemented by sentient program Clu, was chimerical because it led him to devalue his relationship with Sam and to abandon the imperfect, but irreplaceable, real world. It also led to the destruction of the Isos, “isomorphic algorithms” which spontaneously and unexpectedly manifest within the Grid, showing Flynn that perhaps the messy imperfection he sought to repress is ineliminable from even the Grid itself. Of all the Tron movies, Tron: Legacy comes closest to speaking to the social pathologies of current Big Tech while at the same time portraying a set of humans with legible, human-sized motivations and struggles.

    The trajectory of Ares from Dillinger’s master control program to messianic program at large in the real world is, I think, meant to explore a similar theme to that of Flynn’s enlightenment in Legacy. The problem, though, is that Tron: Ares underdevelops the theme. Some of that is due to Jared Leto’s limited acting range: he plays Ares with the flat affect of HAL-9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey and doesn’t let us into Ares’ internal conflict. The real limitation of Tron: Ares, though, is that Ares’ enlightenment and defection is just one more plot point in the service of, at bottom, a straightforward, but utterly overstuffed, white-hat/black-hat techno-Western. The movie rarely gets a chance to breathe, to allow us to sit with the characters and develop any sense of what is at stake for them, and for us as the audience. In the midst of all this, Ares remains ultimately a handsome cipher with fearsome combat skills. Mindless wall-to-wall action is fine if you’re in a Fast and Furious movie that isn’t even trying to be credible. But for all its winks and nods to the Tron nostalgists out there, Tron: Ares ultimately lacks any sense of humor about itself.

    What is really at stake in Tron: Ares is, despite the title, not Ares—his trajectory is really just a sideshow—but instead a struggle between two tech CEOs for corporate dominance. If you’re a tech CEO, I guess that plot really speaks to you, but otherwise, not so much. Of course, the movie seeks to engineer our loyalties at every turn. ENCOM, the white hats of the piece, are the geeky, fun, diverse company who is seeking the Permanence Code to help solve the world’s problems. Eve Kim is not only a nice, relatable woman, but is also grieving her dead sister and trying to use the Permanence Code to further cancer research in her sister’s memory. ENCOM’s color palette is all warm blues and its design sense is curvilinear and organic. Dillinger Systems, by contrast, is all angry reds, blacks, and grays and boxy, angular, spiky designs. Julian Dillinger is a peevish brat with a genuinely unhealthy relationship with his domineering mother (Gillian Anderson, trying her level best with this part),[1] and Dillinger wants the Permanence Code to develop a next generation of unstoppable weapons of war and supersoldiers.

    The difference between our protagonists and their spheres of influence is not remotely subtle. And yet, they are both ultimately just tech CEOs struggling for corporate advantage. We are supposed to derive comfort from the fact that the good CEO wins out over the bad CEO. But at the end of the day it’s all just CEOs—and of course, Permanence Ares, who ends the movie wandering Mexico on a motorcycle learning about human life. Nice work if you can get it.

    It’s hard to derive much solace in 2025, though, from a movie that tells us that the only thing that can stop a bad tech CEO is a good tech CEO. We are living through the reality that there really aren’t any good tech CEOs, certainly none with the power and influence wielded by the real-life analogues of Julian Dillinger. Instead of the messianic promise of AI becoming sentient like Ares and trying to affect a rapprochement between the imperatives of technological growth and the claims of humanity, we have people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel who have thrown their lot in with authoritarian government, genocide, and carbon-induced climate disaster. We even have Thiel giving private, secretive lectures which, in the absence of any historical or theological evidence or warrant, claims that opponents of AI are servants of the antichrist. It’s hard to be celebratory about the actual state of AI technology; far from curing cancer and synthesizing orange trees on the Alaskan tundra, it’s turning most of the Internet into a soup of misinformation and poorly written slop, jacking up electricity prices, and hastening our ongoing climate catastrophe, all to help college students cheat on writing assignments and to save mid-level office workers a few minutes a day in writing meaningless reports.

    Tron: Ares has precisely nothing to say to any of these actual problems. That would be fine if it were just a big dumb action flick. But it isn’t; whether it wants to be or not, it’s a film about tech CEOs and AI screening in 2025 in a world set on fire in large part by the very forces it celebrates. It’s impossible not to have a sense of the tonal disconnect between the sunny world at the end of this movie and the one in which we find ourselves, and it’s hard to swallow the answer this movie proposes, which is the non-choice choice of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan:Don’t like your absolute ruler? Start again with a new absolute ruler and hope for the best!

    ***

    In 1966, Martin Heidegger, the first Nazi rector of Freiburg University and also an influential philosopher, consented to an interview with the German newsweekly Der Spiegel in which he agreed to break his longstanding silence about his complicity with the Nazi regime. In the interview, only published five days after Heidegger’s death in 1976 by Heidegger’s stipulation, Heidegger is famously evasive and misleading on the subject of his tenure as a Nazi official, seeking instead to paint it as a sadly misdirected application of his philosophical thought. Striking a quietist pose reminiscent of the late Hegel’s famed statement that “the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk,” Heidegger tells his interviewers:

    [P]hilosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinking and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.

    Heidegger with Rudolf Augstein, one of the interviewers who conducted the 1966 Der Spiegel interview.

    In a strange irony, the decidedly anti-technological thought of the late Heidegger became a seminal influence on the intellectual ethos of Silicon Valley. The quietist project of preparing for the advent of a god that Heidegger espouses in his Spiegel interview becomes, in the hands of today’s tech overlords, an effort to “move fast and break things,” to “disrupt,” to force history open at its joints so that the god may enter. Tron: Ares is 2025’s cinematic depiction of the current state of this half-baked Silicon Valley messianism. If anything, the emptiness of the film may have ultimately done us all a favor: the digital messiah for which our tech overlords have prepared us is, like Jared Leto’s Ares, probably nothing but a vapid bore.


    [1] I, for one, sensed shades of the vaguely incestuous Raymond Shaw/Eleanor Iselin dynamic from the 1962 adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate in that relationship. The movie barely devotes any real interest to it, though, and in the process wastes Gillian Anderson’s talent.

  • Long Live the Movie Novelizations!

    Long Live the Movie Novelizations!

    Daley, Brian. Tron (Ballantine, 1982). Adapted from a screenplay by Steven Lisberger and a story by Steven Lisberger and Bonnie MacBird.

    Narratives in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

    Book and film critics have spilled a lot of ink on the subject of film adaptations of books. Spike Jonze even made a (hilarious, absurd) movie satirizing the process. But what about the reverse process: taking an original screenplay and adapting it as a novel?

    I am just old enough to remember when it was commonplace for films made from original screenplays to release a “novelization” of the film that coincided with, or just preceded, the release of the film. Before the advent of streaming services that allow anyone with a subscription to watch movies anywhere on their phones, before the advent of VCR’s and rental videocassettes even, studios sponsored film novelizations to promote their films. The concept was simple: a film novelization, usually a mass-market paperback, is portable and readable anywhere, letting fans connect to a movie they like without having to drop everything and go to a movie theater. The novelization is also one more artifact about the movie circulating out in the world, on bookstore and magazine rack shelves, in the hands of readers on the bus or in a doctor’s office.

    Suffice it to say that film novelizations are not, and were never really meant to be, great literature. They are mass-produced promotional objects on a level akin to Mcdonald’s movie tie-in drinking glasses. I do have a soft spot for them, though, as they represent a feature of the pre-Internet, pre-personal-computer days of my childhood that are increasingly hard to remember or even imagine.

    I didn’t own a lot of film novelizations personally. The one I remember best was the 1986 novelization of Top Gun by Mike Cogan, which I know I read six or seven times. (Don’t judge me; it was a strange time in my life.) My fondest memory, though, is of the novelization of Tron, the widely-panned 1982 Disney sci-fi film starring Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner, and David Warner.

    The Program, The Myth, the Legend

    Tron was released on July 9, 1982 to a great deal of hype. If you don’t know anything about the movie, the short synopsis is that Kevin Flynn, a computer hacker/programmer, gets blasted into the world of the computer—called the System—by the tyrannical Master Control Program, or MCP, an artificial-intelligence program run amok. Inside the System, Flynn helps Tron, a heroic program written by Flynn’s friend Alan Bradley, overthrow the MCP and restore freedom to the System. It was the first film I know of that made extensive use of 3D-rendered computer animation, most of which was rendered painstakingly frame-by-frame. It was the gee-whiz visuals that Disney used to sell the movie, and understandably so; they were unlike anything that had ever been on screen up to that point.

    I was about to turn eight years old in 1982 and as a geeky little boy of course I wanted to see Tron desperately. Life, though, had other plans. My family took a trip to Disney World in the summer of 1982 to celebrate my older sister’s tenth birthday, and on our down time we went to see movies. The theatrical competition for Tron was John Huston’s adaptation of the Annie musical with Carol Burnett and Albert Finney and the Steven Spielberg blockbuster E.T. The family opted to see the latter two movies. No one in my family besides me had the slightest interest in seeing Tron. (Well, my father might have, but he wasn’t with us on that trip, and anyway I only remember going to the movies with him once. It was Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, which played a matinee in my hometown movie theater when I was four or five. We walked out.)

    What I did get as a consolation prize, though, was the novelization of Tron, by Brian Daley. I have no recollection of exactly where my parents bought it for me, whether on our Florida vacation or later. But I loved having it. It had a color insert of post-production stills from the movie that showcased the CGI animation. I do not recall ever actually reading the book; having it as an artifact on my bookshelf was enough, at least until I could see the movie itself.

    Tron ultimately came to be lampooned as a bomb at the same time as it had a sort of geek cult following, probably due to its aesthetic and its place in the history of CGI animation. Its biggest weakness was that it was just not that great a movie. The story had problems that went beyond the simple suspension of disbelief required to accept Jeff Bridges/Flynn getting blasted into the world of the computer. The dialogue was clunky, especially Flynn’s; Jeff Bridges did his best, but some of what the movie has him exclaim is as incongruous as Pavement lyrics. The light-cycle sequence, the first sustained CGI sequence in the history of film, is genuinely thrilling, but it’s a set piece packed away in a lot of turgid struggle between the MCP, his chief lieutenant Sark, and their red-clad minions with the glowing blue forces of good. The chief axis of the struggle is over, oddly enough, something like religion: the MCP seeks to quash programs’ belief in the Users, the beings in the world outside who write and use the programs, and the blue-clad good guys are those who stubbornly refuse to renounce their belief in the Users and hence get pitted against the MCP’s Warrior Elite (and each other) in gladiatorial combat.

    This element of Tron echoes late-Cold-War anti-Communist ideology (the dastardly, power-hungry Reds demanding that everyone renounce faith in a higher power and worship them as lords and masters), but the ideology of the movie is too vaguely rendered to serve as a transparent allegory. This is largely because of the added element Tron introduces of unease over advanced computer technology run amok, a concern that cuts across the conflict between capitalism and communism. In this Tron was a movie ahead of its time. In 1982, hardly anyone had a personal computer, much less one capable of networking with other machines, and AI was still the stuff of sci-fi stories. Tron was a cautionary tale about techbro anarchocapitalism decades before anyone thought that was something we might need to fear. But the movie almost tries to be too much in too little time: gee-whiz adventure, Star Wars liberation fantasy, allegory. It doesn’t quite succeed at any of it.

    The Novel and the Film

    Brian Daley’s novelization, though, is in some important ways superior to the film. I don’t know what specific process Daley used to write this book, but commonly the studio would give the author some more or less final version of the screenplay, plus perhaps some conceptual art, production stills, or other visual references, and then the novelist would make a book out of that. Given the need for a novelization to come out at the same time as the movie, there would normally be no time for the writer to see a finished cut of the movie before writing the book. This means that sometimes novelizations include dialogue, entire scenes, or entire subplots that ultimately get cut out of the theatrical version of the film. Even if the screenplay the novelization author uses as a basis for the novel, though, tracks the final cut of the film perfectly, the author inevitably has to use a certain amount of license in turning the story into a readable novel. The conventions of fiction writing for a popular audience demand a certain amount of characterization and expansion that a “show, don’t tell” screenplay simply don’t provide.

    I know the movie Tron well—it’s one of those movies like David Lynch’s 1984 Dune that I love, even as I realize how flawed they are—and so I looked forward to the possibility that the book would tell a richer story than the film. In that I was not disappointed.

    The story of the Daley novel and much of the detail does not depart radically from the theatrical film.[1] Flynn’s dialogue is as jarringly absurd as ever—I guess Daley felt he couldn’t entirely rewrite dialogue that would end up in the film. Also, the new scenes or story elements portrayed in the book that are not in the movie are of only minor significance.[2] Where the book oustrips the theatrical film is that it sheds new light on the characterization and motivations of certain characters, as well as certain story elements that are certainly implicit in the film but are so implicit as to be scarcely legible.

    The most significant of these advances:

    The character of Ed Dillinger. In both the book and the film, Ed Dillinger (David Warner), whose counterpart in the System is Sark, the MCP’s Command Program, is a menacing, power-hungry thief. Dillinger rose to Senior Vice President of ENCOM by stealing Flynn’s ideas and code for Space Paranoids and other highly profitable video games, hiding the evidence of his theft, and steering Flynn to the exits. He had a hand in creating the MCP, but he learns in the course of the story that the MCP has developed plans of its own and that it will brook no resistance from Dillinger or anyone else to its execution of those plans.

      In the book, though, we get more of a window into Dillinger’s state of mind—an easier feat in a novel than in a movie. The novel’s Dillinger is putting on a brave front, but is secretly terrified both that Flynn will find the evidence he needs to prove Dillinger’s theft and of the MCP, which is spiraling out of control. David Warner is a fine actor, but for whatever reason his performance as Dillinger doesn’t capture this vulnerability and fear very well. At least I don’t think so.

      The character of Lora/Yori. Lora (Cindy Morgan), a researcher working in ENCOM’s laser lab, doesn’t have a lot to do in the movie other than being the current girlfriend of Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) and Flynn’s ex.Her counterpart in the System, Yori, is a program working in an unnamed sector near the Input/Output Tower manned by Dumont. She is Tron’s love interest (Tron, of course, being Alan Bradley’s System counterpart), and she helps him, but beyond that she doesn’t do much.

      In the novel, though, we get a little more discussion of Lora’s different feelings for both Bradley and Flynn. (Not much more, though, and her conflicted feelings make her seem more than a little indecisive, but this is the character Daley was dealt.) Yori, however, gets even more of a backstory. Yori used to work in the Factory Domain of the System, a domain described as a hub of productivity before the MCP began draining it of power and resources to feed its own designs (see below). She and the programs of the Factory Domain used to do amazing work for the Users, but now they are systematically starved and reduced to dronelike servant labor. They are continually weak and semiconscious, and their speech consists of little beyond strings of numbers. (I see echoes here of the dronelike inhabitants of Planet Camazotz in Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time.)

      In the movie, Tron, upon reuniting with Yori, re-energizes her, and only then does she recognize him. The same thing happens in the book, but the book explains that Tron is able to do so because he has drunk from a pure source of power that he, Flynn, and Ram found after escaping the Light Cycle grid. The MCP, we learn, has either tapped dry the standard sources of power or else diluted or polluted them. The MCP overlooked this power source, though, and it is a rare source of “true” power, providing Tron with clean, good power to spare. This earlier scene also happens in the movie too, but without much explanation of its significance. Hence when Tron reenergizes Yori, the movie leaves the reason why it happens obscure; we are left wondering if it isn’t just her love for Tron that does it. I have watched the movie any number of times and never once thought of connecting the Tron/Yori reunion scene with the “drinking the pure power” scene.

      Yori’s “worker” attire in the Factory Domain is described in the book much as it is shown in the movie: boots, tight-fitting cap. What the movie does not portray, though, is that in the book the “reenergized” Yori is able to transfigure, as it were, into a non-worker-drone form. This transfigured Yori is described almost like an angel, shining with light, long tresses hanging downward, in refulgent robes. She transfigures multiple times in the book, but always reverts to “worker” Yori for action scenes.

      Lora/Yori is, as a character, still underutilized and largely lacks agency. She is there to humanize the male characters a little bit. She, and the movie, definitely fail the Bechdel test, not least because she is the only woman in the whole film.

      The MCP’s relationship to the System and to the real world. As in the movie, the MCP is a megalomaniacal artificial intelligence that has decided that it can run the world better than its human creators. (With the benefit of hindsight it is hard not to see it as a mirror for “there is no alternative” technocratic neoliberalism run amok, but I digress.) Another underplayed element in the movie that Daley’s novel highlights is that the MCP’s hunger for power is also a literal hunger for energy. The MCP’s project of harnessing the power of other programs, like cryptocurrency mining, takes a lot of electricity, and the novel makes clear that the MCP gets it by tapping every energy source it can find (drill, baby, drill!), siphoning off energy that existing sectors need to function, and polluting the rest. The novel ties the lethargy of the Factory Sector, barely remarked in the film, directly to the MCP’s energy vampirism. The novel also explains certain parts of Flynn, Tron, and Yori’s ability to evade the MCP’s forces by saying that the MCP is distracted, operating near the limit of its processing power in pursuing its plan of world domination.

      In the final confrontation between Tron and the MCP, the film depicts, in a few fleeting frames, figures pinned to the inside of the retaining ring hiding the MCP’s central conical head. In another case of added context, the novel explains that these figures are Dumont and other Input/Output majordomos—the high priests, as it were, of the religion of the Users—and that the MCP is draining their energy to power himself. It’s an added phantasmagoric detail that makes the MCP that much more horrific: he surrounds himself with the crucified, dying bodies of the priests of his enemies and lives off of their life force.

      In the real world, the MCP of course does not have the same sort of powers as in the System. The novel, though, underscores the MCP’s main real-world power—the power of surveillance—in a way that, again, the film underplays. Many scenes that take place in ENCOM Tower in the film include cuts to footage of characters walking hallways taken from the screens of security cameras. These images in the film certainly add to the conspiratorial, claustrophobic air of ENCOM Tower, but do little more than that. In the novel, though, the MCP is monitoring all of this security footage and knows more or less where all of the principals are in the building—and possibly elsewhere.

      Style, and a Little More Substance

      Tron the film is arguably a triumph of style over substance. Its visual aesthetic and its pioneering use of CGI are by far its greatest contribution to cinema and visual art. It might seem strange, then, to devote attention to the novelization of Tron. The novelization is a competent, decently plotted piece of storytelling, but hardly innovative as a work of fiction. It’s a novel, and not history-making in any way. Why read it, much less discuss it?

      For me, reading the novel gave me insight into how Tron the film could have been better than it was. As my above discussion makes clear, so much of the additional substance and context the novel provides is clearly implicit in the finished film, just underdeveloped. The screenplay spelled out some, but not all of this original context, and the novel took it further. A few changes in how certain elements of the story got told—not all of which would have added to the movie’s run time—might have made the actual story of the film more legible underneath the computer graphics.

      No version of Tron—screenplay, novelization, film—is great storytelling. Both the in-world stakes of the central conflict between the MCP and the “good guys” as well as its messages about technology and ideological conflict are too ambiguous to be compelling. Movies go through a torturous process on their way to the screen, and in the case of Tron the end product yielded a more cramped story than most. Reading the novelization of Tron is a great reminder of, among other things, the limits of the auteur theory of cinema; films are the outcome of the creative labor and business decisions of large teams of people, and all of those influences leave their mark on what ends up on screen.


      [1] My guess is that most of the edits to the screenplay and story were finished during the screenplay and storyboarding stage, before even principal shooting began. Animated films often work this way, and especially worked this way before the advent of relatively cheap computer animation, since full production of scenes involved armies of human beings drawing by hand. The little I know about the production of Tron suggests that it was produced very much like an animated feature due to the amount of laboriously crafted 1982 CGI.

      [2] The most significant of these is a scene in which Tron, after reuniting with his love interest, the woman-presenting program Yori, in the Factory Domain, spends the night with her in her apartment. The book implies that they spend the night together and have sex, or whatever passes for sex between two computer programs, but does not graphically describe it. This scene is in the screenplay (available online), which makes me suspect that perhaps implied computer-program sex was too much for Disney’s marketing department, or else filming Yori’s transformation would have been one effects-shot expense too many.