I'm not a film major, but I do love movies...
I've always loved stories - whatever form they took, and I spent much of my very young childhood watching movies with my parents. And having been born in the early 80's, I have a particular fondness for movies from that time period.
It is likely because of this that I view the increasing flood of remakes and long-delayed sequels to these films surging out of Hollywood to be both vaguely disturbing and depressing at the same time.
Not that I have any particular hatred for furthering a good concept, or the re-telling/imagining of a story - I liked the 2009 Star Trek.
I really did.
Why?
Because it was in the spirit of the thing - it was not "my" Classic Star Trek - not the Captain Kirk I had watched since I could sit up on my own, but it was Star Trek in spirit, and that made it fun, and a generally good film of it's kind. Not profound, but fun, and in the spirit of a "space-cowboy" adventure with a "band together and save the world" flare thrown in for good measure.
It was alright (with me, at least), because it wasn't the Star Trek I'd grown up with - nor did it pretend to be - it was even stated, rather implicitly that what we as the audience (and the characters within the film) that they were existing in an alternate universe from the one that I had grown up with.
It was something new, it was something unique in and of itself, based on a "mythology" I had known from very early childhood, and then reconstructed to make something new and enjoyable for the 2009 audience.
But then there was Tron Legacy... which was, on the surface, something like the original, with some of the original tone... but it wasn't in the spirit of the thing.
The original Tron was a film about he speed at which information travels, corporate cut-throat politics, cyber-spirituality, a fear of the technology itself and a number of other cultural, philosophical, and technological questions that were nothing short of revolutionary in its time. These ideas could only be brushed on very lightly, however, because of the time in which the film was made.
(Painting of TRON by HenryTownsend on Deviant Art)
In 1982, very few people had a personal computer, let alone any real understanding of the way in which this new and exciting technology worked. Video games were still struggling to return to the home market after their messy (abet temporary) death in the mid 70's, but were seeing an increase in popularity in the form of the arcade with preteen to teenage audiences. So a film that was centered around concepts and knowledge that the average person couldn't relate to would have to rely on spectacle to remain engaging to the audience as it delivered - or at least suggested at - its underlying themes. Thusly, we see Tron also as a hallmark of "cutting edge" digital and animated special effects as well as a fore-runner in fields of thought concerning the (relatively) new field of computer technology that few had attempted to explore at the time.
Because the public was far from "technologically literate" where computers and video games were concerned, the ability of the film to really "converse" with the audience about its deeper subjects was understandably hindered, forcing us to wait until the rest of society to "catch up" to the proficiency required to really understand...
So, 28 years later, fans of the original, and those of us with an interest in video games as an art-form and viable cultural text were excited (though wary) when word came to us over the net that a new Tron was about to be released, one that seemed to have the potential and opportunity to explore those deeper subjects of cyber spirituality, the Internet as it has grown to be, and so much more.
It could, if properly executed, put Ghost in the Shell and The Matrix to shame...
But they failed - hard.
Instead of a profound, intellectual-action-packed experience was reduced to the sub-standard tripe I've increasingly taken to associating with Disney in general.
Although a number of really interesting issues ranging from computer-human "Digital DNA" structures, impartiality and freedom of information over the Internet, racial purging, questions about religion, cyber-spiritualism, etc. - they were never viewed in depth - in fact, most were only barely brushed against and would have been missed entirely by those that weren't already looking for it.
What the rest of the audience was left with was a garden-variety hyper-sexualized, male-dominated approach to technology, the Internet and "gamer-culture" that utterly failed to take advantage of those issues/subjects mentioned above.
The ideas behind cyber-spirituality, the scope and reach of the web and its impact on freedom of speech are all ideas that need to be explored, but time and time again, it seems that Hollywood and increasingly so, Disney - have displayed an almost pathological adversity to including thought-provoking content in "sci-fi" environments.
Mission Impossible, The Matrix and Inception (amongst others) have showed us that intelligent story and intense action sequences are an effective combination - not at all lacking in profit for the box offices.
So then why this pathological aversion to forwarding this trend, rather than rely only on spectacle as the primary device of modern film?
I'm sure there's a financially-viable reason for it... I refuse to believe that the majority of the populace has been reduced to mere mindless consumers of media... or that Hollywood is so utterly desperate fro writing talent that it can't find more people to write really good stories...
Perhaps we're waiting on some kind of Renaissance in Hollywood... one in which a combination of thought-provoking content will be equally as important in a film as massive explosions and strategically-placed low-angle camera shots...
I hope...
I've always loved stories - whatever form they took, and I spent much of my very young childhood watching movies with my parents. And having been born in the early 80's, I have a particular fondness for movies from that time period.
It is likely because of this that I view the increasing flood of remakes and long-delayed sequels to these films surging out of Hollywood to be both vaguely disturbing and depressing at the same time.
Not that I have any particular hatred for furthering a good concept, or the re-telling/imagining of a story - I liked the 2009 Star Trek.
I really did.
Why?
Because it was in the spirit of the thing - it was not "my" Classic Star Trek - not the Captain Kirk I had watched since I could sit up on my own, but it was Star Trek in spirit, and that made it fun, and a generally good film of it's kind. Not profound, but fun, and in the spirit of a "space-cowboy" adventure with a "band together and save the world" flare thrown in for good measure.
It was alright (with me, at least), because it wasn't the Star Trek I'd grown up with - nor did it pretend to be - it was even stated, rather implicitly that what we as the audience (and the characters within the film) that they were existing in an alternate universe from the one that I had grown up with.
It was something new, it was something unique in and of itself, based on a "mythology" I had known from very early childhood, and then reconstructed to make something new and enjoyable for the 2009 audience.
But then there was Tron Legacy... which was, on the surface, something like the original, with some of the original tone... but it wasn't in the spirit of the thing.
The original Tron was a film about he speed at which information travels, corporate cut-throat politics, cyber-spirituality, a fear of the technology itself and a number of other cultural, philosophical, and technological questions that were nothing short of revolutionary in its time. These ideas could only be brushed on very lightly, however, because of the time in which the film was made.
In 1982, very few people had a personal computer, let alone any real understanding of the way in which this new and exciting technology worked. Video games were still struggling to return to the home market after their messy (abet temporary) death in the mid 70's, but were seeing an increase in popularity in the form of the arcade with preteen to teenage audiences. So a film that was centered around concepts and knowledge that the average person couldn't relate to would have to rely on spectacle to remain engaging to the audience as it delivered - or at least suggested at - its underlying themes. Thusly, we see Tron also as a hallmark of "cutting edge" digital and animated special effects as well as a fore-runner in fields of thought concerning the (relatively) new field of computer technology that few had attempted to explore at the time.
Because the public was far from "technologically literate" where computers and video games were concerned, the ability of the film to really "converse" with the audience about its deeper subjects was understandably hindered, forcing us to wait until the rest of society to "catch up" to the proficiency required to really understand...
So, 28 years later, fans of the original, and those of us with an interest in video games as an art-form and viable cultural text were excited (though wary) when word came to us over the net that a new Tron was about to be released, one that seemed to have the potential and opportunity to explore those deeper subjects of cyber spirituality, the Internet as it has grown to be, and so much more.
It could, if properly executed, put Ghost in the Shell and The Matrix to shame...
But they failed - hard.
Instead of a profound, intellectual-action-packed experience was reduced to the sub-standard tripe I've increasingly taken to associating with Disney in general.
Although a number of really interesting issues ranging from computer-human "Digital DNA" structures, impartiality and freedom of information over the Internet, racial purging, questions about religion, cyber-spiritualism, etc. - they were never viewed in depth - in fact, most were only barely brushed against and would have been missed entirely by those that weren't already looking for it.
What the rest of the audience was left with was a garden-variety hyper-sexualized, male-dominated approach to technology, the Internet and "gamer-culture" that utterly failed to take advantage of those issues/subjects mentioned above.
The ideas behind cyber-spirituality, the scope and reach of the web and its impact on freedom of speech are all ideas that need to be explored, but time and time again, it seems that Hollywood and increasingly so, Disney - have displayed an almost pathological adversity to including thought-provoking content in "sci-fi" environments.
Mission Impossible, The Matrix and Inception (amongst others) have showed us that intelligent story and intense action sequences are an effective combination - not at all lacking in profit for the box offices.
So then why this pathological aversion to forwarding this trend, rather than rely only on spectacle as the primary device of modern film?
I'm sure there's a financially-viable reason for it... I refuse to believe that the majority of the populace has been reduced to mere mindless consumers of media... or that Hollywood is so utterly desperate fro writing talent that it can't find more people to write really good stories...
Perhaps we're waiting on some kind of Renaissance in Hollywood... one in which a combination of thought-provoking content will be equally as important in a film as massive explosions and strategically-placed low-angle camera shots...
I hope...
No comments:
Post a Comment