Talk:Tron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Hanson, Matt (2005). "1982: Blade Runner, Tron". Building Sci-Fi Moviescapes: The Science Behind the Fiction. Focal Press. ISBN 0240807723.

Here is a URL for cite #17 http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-09/technology/17524410_1_tron-steven-lisberger-tilda-swinton Wiseleo (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PopCult/Trivia

An "in popular culture" item is that the term "de-rez" (or however one might want to spell that), introduced in this film, is said by the Jargon File (or New Hacker's Dictionary in book form) to be in actual use in geek culture, in a silly way, since at least the early 1990s. However, the term has been used seriously in Caprica (2009-2010) to refer to avatars being kicked from a virtual, immersive environment after being dealt an in-game fatal wound. I wouldn't go create a PopCult section just for this item, but if one is created, this would probably be a good entry. It might also be notable that the phrase "Gort, klaatu barada nikto" from the original The Day The Earth Stood Still, and later re-used (sans "Gort") in Army of Darkness, appears on a cubicle in Tron, early on in the film. Might be too trivial. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The character "Moses" in "South Park" has been portrayed as the Master Control Program from TRON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of South Park, the episode "You Have Zero Friends" includes a pretty good Tron parody. John D. Goulden (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop Cruft

The "in popular culture" section is inappropriate for inclusion because it violate the policies regarding trivia. Regarding a proper pop culture section, please take a look at the essay regarding the subject of popular culture references in articles. I want to point out the following recommendation from that essay:

Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject

These additions that keep getting added are not effects on our popular culture, but simple parodies and passing references which are not appropriate for inclusion. True examples of pieces of information that could be popular culture effects would be things like Ronald Reagan's reference to the Soviet Union as being the Evil Empire from Star Wars or how technologists often reference props and situations from Star Trek when they talk of how far we have advanced science and technology. These are the things that are true affects our culture, not how South Park and Family Guy referenced the movie in a skit. A prime example of a popular culture effect from the movie would be the internet meme regarding Jay Maynard, aka the Tron Guy. Other proper instances of how the movie affects popular culture would be how the movie inspired several people, including John Lasseter, to engage in new endeavors such as computer animation or innovative special effects.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that as long as it's a verifiable and important part of the storyline or scene of a movie, tv show, song, etc., it's allowable. If it's a full scene in South Park or Family guy for instance (down to influencing the dialogue), it's valid. We have pretty well laid out guidelines on this at the Video Games project - WP:VG/POP - that other projects have followed/adopted successfully in the past as well, and that have been applied to article that stood up to GA and FA reviews. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the better litmus test would be to use reliable sources that note the reference. For example, when films are adapted from the source material, it is technically observable to note what was in the source material and what was not in the film adaptation (or vice versa). This is indiscriminate, though, with no real sense of importance, so we defer to reliable sources' comparisons to determine what differences or similarities are worth noting (see Apt Pupil (film)#Differences between novella and film as an example). For popular culture, we need to be broader in how Tron has been referenced. Currently, we are linking to videos with no sense of importance, and especially shows that are expected to cram in as many pop culture references as possible. This doesn't mean we should be taking one episode of South Park or Family Guy and going to each topic referred to and say, "An episode of this show mentioned this!" We need a broader statement like the film's production design or its light cycle scenes being emulated in subsequent media. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by better, did you actually read through the guidelines I posted? They all require reliable references. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just deleting the section, why not try to integrate it into the rest of the article. People like to know these references.Rachelskit (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it has no relation to the article other than passing references, which is inappropriate. See the other policies and essays I have linked to in the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Marty, this is not a video games article so those guidelines are not proper here. This is a science fiction film and those two projects' policies should prevail. From what I have seen from those two, passing references like we are seeing in this article are not acceptable. I have agreed with what Erik has stated, we need to provide more than mentioning that this movie has been parodied here and mention there. We need to state how it has effected culture with real, citable facts. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with not including all the passing references, but I've long maintained that there is plenty of notable evidence as to how the movie and its cult following have inspired many such parodies and references over time. A mention of this general effect on pop culture along with a few notable examples would be a good thing. Trying to exhaustively list them all would not be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I Agree, there is no reason to delete the entire section-just fine tune itRachelskit (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about deleting the section either, read what I said in my initial post. When I did delete selection, I did so because it was full of the passing references and nothing else. If you want to fine tune it, you will still need to do the proper research and find valid references from proper sources- no YouTube, no Hulu & no Blogs. So instead saying South Park did this..., you will need to say something like Stone and Parker have enjoyed the film for years and it helped inspire them so they decided to pay tribute by writing the episode "blah" as found in an interview in "Animation Magzine" Volume x page y issue z. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nearly thirty days later and no one has touched this, any takers? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A month later, and still no work done to correct the issue. If some one does not work on this soon I will. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, while obviously references to tron, no matter how blatantly obvious the similarity is, it must be backed up by a verifiable source that states it is in fact a parody of Tron. Regardless, as has already been stated by Jerem43, this section should reflect the significant impact the franchise has had on culture, not a list of parodies and passing references. SpigotMap 13:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend removing the section in its entirety. If the topic is to be restored with proper references, it should be something like "Cultural impact". The "Popular culture" section heading encourages indiscriminate addition of trivia. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "In popular culture" section per this discussion. I will come back to this later and add the stuff mentioned in my first post. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Allen-Bradley reference - worthy of inclusion?

I've long been led to believe that the name "Alan Bradley" is a reference to the company Allen-Bradley, famed for making human-machine interfaces and programmable logic controllers. Would this be sufficiently relevant to include in the article (or in the List of characters in Tron article), or does it qualify as the sort of trivia that's already been trimmed? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You would have to add a reference, but it seems like it's so obvious that it might not need it. as long as you don't confirm it as fact right away.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to WABAC or "wayback machine"

Reference to WABAC machine a fictional machine from the cartoon segment Peabody's Improbable History, an ongoing feature of the 1960's cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WABAC_machine. In the film (script) "FLYNN: (sighs) Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for...oh, 1973.".

Now used as a name for the internet archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine 217.43.156.228 (talk)

Not sure how long this particular topic has been here or how I missed it earlier, but yes, Flynn's line is a reference to the Rocky & Bullwinkle segment. However, it's not particularly notable, it's trivia, and there is absolutely no (sourced) connection between the Internet archive site and Tron. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tron (franchise)

As most franchise articles, the article itself holds parenthesis in the title. I suggest we simply leave it as Tron. Why? because there is no article with the name "tron" by itself, all the others have a side title in order to show difference.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Computer Animation?

The orginal TRON movie is credited as being one of the first mainstream movies to incorporate computer generated animation. However, according to the Wikipedia article for that movie, only 15-20 minutes of the actual movie was computer generated. I can see no reference at all to computer generated animation for this sequel. I would appreciate if the article could include information on how many of the animation scenes were computer generated and how many used traditional animation.Savlonn (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the references were there to show an accounting of the scenes that had computer animation in them. I'll double-check. I recall that at least three different people gave the same general figures for both amount of time and cost for the CG scenes. One of them was Lisberger, and I believe the others were the heads of the respective computer animation houses that did the majority of the CG work in the film. I'll see if I can find the references when I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegory

Someone has added a section about religious allusions in the film. I removed it, but it was swiftly reverted. Following WP:BRD, I am taking the discussion here. Does anyone have a reliable source to cover this content? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the allegory discussion is inherently original research - there is no official source (that I'm aware of, anyway) that discusses religious allegories in the film. While it's true that you could draw some conclusions about such allegories, I've never seen an interview or whitepaper from anyone involved in the film's production that acknowledged, much less discussed at any length, a religious connection.

The topic has been discussed here many times before - the plot summary and development sections used to be chock full of WP:OR about the symbolism of the Users (gods), the Programs (ordinary people) and the MCP (Satan, etc.). None of it was sourced, and the best I could find at the time were just a bunch of fan sites that didn't seem to have any endorsement from the community.

I suspect this is coming about again because of the slightly clearer allusions to spirituality shown in the Tron Legacy trailers (Kevin Flynn meditating, characters able to generate vehicles around them at will, etc.). But unless someone involved in that film legitimizes religious discussion about the first movie, any such info would be more appropriate for that article, not this one. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vehicles in Legacy require a baton to generate. We see that in the lightcycle grid where one of the programs loses his and Flynn is trying to get one to it but Clu gets there first. Later we see Clu lose his baton in the air battle and he takes Rinzler's so he can fly after the Flynns and Quorra. Bizzybody (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Push

All right. I am considering a push for GA on this article. A couple of things needs to happen though:

• Lead section: can be expanded to three paragraphs, but its an easy fix.
• Cast section: they need introductions, but no important plot details are needed in it.
• Production section: Looks excellent
• Reception section: Looks good, needs some expansion in the box office section though.
• Additional sections (Books, Cultural impact, sequel): Looks great, although there are some cn tags here.

When those issues are fixed, this is possible to get this film to at least a GA. Thoughts? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the couple small "errors" in the plot section should be fixed beforehand. But I hope these differences don't come from me seeing probably a digital remastered version or something (The picture quality was way better than what I had in memory from the seeing it as a little kid :) ). But here the things which caught my eye:

• ""Tron", a security program that would monitor communications between the MCP and the outside world." As I understood it Tron could monitor it in a general way. Not only the communication to the outside world (which doesn't make sense to me anyhow)
• "Flynn convinces Bradley to bring him into ENCOM's laser laboratory ..." He just ask them to bring him to ENCOM, as far a I understand it is Lora the one who suggest her work terminal as the place for Flynn.
• "Tron then joins with Yori ..." For me this part is also misleading, they meet before Tron communicates with his user. As far as I remember she is even the one convincing Dumont(?) to help them.
• "Tron then attacks the MCP directly" Tron starts attacking after he "defeated" Shark which prompts the MCP to transfer it's power to Shark.

TFTD (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

CULT CLASSIC

Why is "cult classic" being removed? 1982 Tron is the very definition of a cult classic movie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"1982 American live-action-computer animated science fiction action cult film"?

Really? Is such an overly detailed mouthful of a description necessary? Rabble rabble... TheCosmicFrog (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the first sentence of the lead section to just "1982 American science fiction action film". Would this help? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think even the "action" can go, given that "science fiction" implies at least a modicum of action. Robert K S (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Science fiction implies action, but I'm fine with reducing the mouthful. "American" could also go, 1982 and SciFi are the most defining qualities. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Availability

The movie has been available on YouTube for a couple months. The copyright issue is raised in the comments with a response by RUINERx117: "Actually Disneys rules allow for movies of a certain age that havent been on DVD in so many years years to be posted online." If any reference can be found for this claim, we could include a link to the movie from the article, as "linking to infringing content" would not be a concern for wikipedia if Disney is permitting its availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejtttje (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly strongly strongly disbelieve that's Disney's stance. They're the ones primarily responsible for copyright extensions in the first place, and also inconsistent with US copyright law. No way that's happening. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tron Guy Impact and Sequal

I noticed that there is absolutely no mention in the tron article of the Tron Guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3609OtM138c It has struck me as no coincidence that the sequel to tron, Tron: Legacy only got on after the Tron Guy became an internet meme... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Jay Maynard should be mentioned somewhere (although not by pointing to a Youtube video from this article). Asserting any kind of influence on the decision to make T:L is OR and highly dubious (especially without a source). -- Nczempin (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it's not from "TRace ON"?

I always assumed it was named after TRON, the debugging command from the BASIC programming language. And I just read in this article "...and that was our Tron warrior - Tron for electronic." Really? —Darxus (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you assumed wrong; there is more detail AFAIR on the "Making of" parts on the DVD. None of the producers were BASIC programmers. Really. In fact I will remove the irrelevant link to the BASIC command. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the See also on TRace ON to a WP:hatnote. I managed to forget to add an edit comment, tried to stop it to add the comment, failed. SRY. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hat note, there is little chance that someone will mistake the name of this article, Tron (film), for the article on the TRON command.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Adding the hatnote was not my primary intention; you also reverted my removal of the link in the See also section. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted in the re-release

I recently purchased the re-release Blu-ray DVD combo pack for this movie (and the combo pack for Tron: Legacy), and noticed a graphic during one scene, but I am not sure if it is in the original version or not.

During their flight of the "sailing simulation" (the solar-sail type ship), during a certain part of it, there is a mickey mouse head on the "ground" underneath the ship, as it flies by, an obvious nod to Disney. I wanted to add this to the main page, but did not see a section for it. 69.182.188.141 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a well-known Easter egg that has been there since the original film came out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tron's First Year

Why is Tron an 1982 Film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.125.238 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ebert Overlooked Film Festival

Hi, I'm new to this and this is my first post, so I apologize if I'm not doing it correctly.

I saw the Tron page get lot's of hits on Reddit and I was bothered by the following sentence, and I don't believe it to true: "Ebert was so convinced that this film had not been given its due credit by both critics and audiences that he decided to close his first annual Overlooked Film Festival with a showing of Tron.[15]"

1. The reference does not confirm the reason for Ebert to include Tron in the festival, only the fact that it was shown. I believe the author exaggerated Ebert's reason for including the film hence creating false hype. 2. I was there to see Tron (first time ever) and Ebert said something along the lines that the movie was made on 70mm film and few movie theaters have been left with the ability to show it -- hence it being overlooked.

Can we change this sentence to be more objective? Dawid Dawidp (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Danish dancepop act Infernal's video for the song "From Paris To Berlin" has direct reference to the movie with the lightcycles. Also South Park episode Jewbilee has the apparition of god whose form is directly taken from Tron. They both are obvious if looking themNoseball (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did the Legacy (games and other media) section go?

This article used to have a discussion on how the movie led to several high-profile video games (Tron, Discs of Tron, Tron Deadly Discs (INTV), Tron 2.0, Tron Killer App, central role in Kingdom Hearts II, etc.). While I know the Franchise article takes care of centralizing this info, I think it's inappropriate to not mention at least the most immediate game connections in this article as well. I'd be interested in knowing why that section was removed (it used to be here).

This sort of thing is usually covered in a Legacy section (not to be confused with "Tron Legacy"). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)