With the new Tron Movie coming out, I have very mixed feelings. I’ll be the first to admit that the first Tron movie is far from being a perfect film, but one of the main things it has going for it is it’s design. Syd Mead, Peter Lloyd, and Moebius brought some of the most amazing environmental and industrial design that film has ever seen. Design so severe that there isn’t anything like it in film to this day, and for one clear reason–minimalism. Tron Legacy has taken a very different approach.

When the original Tron team set out to design Tron, they were faced with their fair share of restrictions, but that wasn’t the driving force behind their decisions. They wanted to make a simple, clean and graphic world to illustrate the inside of a computer. They went out of their way to do so. Sure, the original lightcycle design was a compromise because Syd Mead couldn’t show the rider outside of the bike, but even his original design was as minimal as the one that made it in the film.

The landscapes were large, and expansive, but also very restrained. There was very little there to hint at what was going on. Some spires with rings around it, a hint of distance mountains, a grid for a ground plain, lines that might be describing a sea or a desert. That’s all that was there, simple, graphic, minimal, elegant, and we filled in the rest.

Flash forward to today: the new Tron. Yes, they have a very bleak palette, but if you look at the world, everything is there right in front of you, plain as day, completely spelled out, lush and obvious. The city looks like a realistic city, the sky is filled with realistic clouds, the interiors have reflections and real lighting. Everything in the film has real physics, the lean of the bikes, the air coming off the disks as they throw them. Where did the subtlety or finesse go? Where is the simplicity? Is this the best modern film can do? Is this entirely the designer’s fault? I don’t think so.

See, I’m pretty sure that modern audiences need this approach to design. I think that modern audience just can’t fill in the blanks themselves. We can’t have a hint of a mountain, we need to see the texture of grass, every rock, every drop of water in the river.  We can’t hear about a battle, we need the camera to sweep across two miles and see one million yelling soldiers charging and zoom in to see every drop of blood spilled. Everything needs to be spelled out and obvious. Everything in stories needs to be explained and seen. We are jaded by modern design and information overindulgence.

We are surrounded and even surround ourselves with worlds that are obvious, realistic, and just boring. We need to have all the answers right in front of us, we can’t imagine or figure out things for ourselves. Nothing can remain minimal or mysterious. We can’t let our minds fill in the blanks. Just because we can see everything, it doesn’t mean we should see everything.

So, that’s why I have very mixed feelings about Tron Legacy. On one hand, I can’t wait to go to into that world again, but on the other hand, they will show me how everything in that world works, explain everything, show everything, make it realistic and boring. They will attempt to explain away the mystery and minimalism of the original film. But they are also helping the original Tron too.

This modern design approach to Tron with all it’s lush realism, and obvious answers will perfectly illustrate the legacy of the design of the original Tron.

16 thoughts on “Analog Essay: Tron Legacy Design

  1. DAGO says:

    I see it the other way around, to me this movie looks perfect because the original world was limited to the technology of the time, everything looked like vectors (pretty much like battlezone) because that was the newest tech that you could see in arcades and Atari at home.
    Now computers and consoles have evolved so to me its natural that the world of Tron looks like it could be rendered by a Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3.

  2. Nick says:

    “Just because we can see everything, it doesn’t mean we should see everything.”

    Well said my friend!

  3. iam8bit says:

    It’s funny how the visualize of the interiors of a computer are also so familiar and literal. From a purely mathematical standpoint, you’d think that the “information” (being the architecture) would be organized in a much different way. Like – why would a computer make the world a comfortable place for a human to populate; why is it constructed in an easily navigated way? I’d think it be more conflicted in its approach, creating MC Escher style enigmas, while being super stylized and sexy.

    The original Tron is a busted movie, but the design is pure and true.

  4. Blake says:

    I can see how it would almost make perfect sense to keep the stark minimalism/robot look. Because it’s the same computer system from 1983 (er 82, whenever), right?

    However, I think for any of it’s nitpicked faults, the “code view” of everything in the Matrix? It was creative, and it looked good. It made sense. And I think in a cinematic world where movies as complex and lush looking as the Matrix was, we as an audience just could not tolerate a similarly “non updated and polished” Tron continuation.

    I for one am OK with the design having it’s flaws, it still keeps some strong aspects that lesser studios would certainly have balked on. Namely the start palette, and really dark, almost imperceivable details that are shadowed in, well, shadows, or dim light. It’s dark, it’s sleek, it’s what I think it needs to be for this time.

    And the soundtrack just, is, well, in my opinion it’s what it needs to be too, just feels right and awesome.
    I’m certainly excited to see it, but if modern “blockbuster” cimena has taught me anything, I’m not holding out for Oscar performances or deep plot and story…

  5. Nick says:

    “The original Tron is a busted movie, but the design is pure and true.”

    Nice.

    Blake, it’s funny that you’d mention The Matrix. I was just thinking about that film yesterday, and how it’s basically already been forgotten despite the fact that it was hailed as an insta-classic in 1999, a film that would go down in history. I don’t think it holds up at all. There’s nothing timeless about it, because the concept and design had no real depth.

  6. Wally Kovacs says:

    I’d argue that the Matrix, while no longer a classic, is still a very influential movie at the very least. If it had not been for the sequels, it may have kept a bit more of it’s aura, but it was so quickly absorbed and copied that it didn’t realy have a chance to be unique for very long (not that it was entirely unique to begin with). If nothing else, bullet time has continued, although now it’s copying the 300 technique of “ramping” as the next step in the techniques evolution.

  7. DAve-C27 says:

    I’m quite upset by the need for what appears to be chemical propulsion in the new film. One of the best, most interesting parts of the original Tron was this idea of objects simply sliding through space (especially the Recognizers), like data on a plane, but the new ones look like they have jet engines or something, complete with exhaust smoke. Smoke? Really?

    And I agree with Wally K. Had the next 2 Matrix movies not come in and left such a terrible taste in the audience’s mouth, I think the first one would be much better off today. The idea of humans as batteries is as compelling as ever, and the agents worked exactly I would expect a computer program would if chasing down human users. If you can think back to 1999 without the intervening years, it was pretty awesome.

  8. Ah, see, this might sound dumb, but my initial thought had been that the world itself was supposed to be running on better technology, and that Flynn’s presence had changed so much. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’d assumed that Tron’s new look was an inherent part of the story.

  9. Cinderwild says:

    While I don’t have any opinion on whether or not the new movie did it the right way, I do think that the design change had to happen. That minimalist design that you mentioned probably wouldn’t make as much sense in today’s world, considering the complexity of today’s computers and our own culture surrounding it.

    It makes more sense that the world of Tron would have developed into a much more hyper realistic landscape than to remain in the old style, because computers and the internet have changed so much since then.

  10. I partially agree with everyone here. I loved the minimalistic design of the original film and hate the necessity to show everything in today’s books, movies, and video games. This trend makes the viewer expectant, lazy, and intolerant of any films that use much slower and more intriguing storytelling methods (just try getting even modern film students to sit through something like “Stalker” by Andrei Tarkovsky).

    However, keeping in mind that the systems used have been continually updated in the Tron video games that’ve come out between the first movie and now (yes, those are canon, believe it or not), the world did have room to evolve, and the rise of the ISOs (see Tron: Evolution and the upcoming film) would just make things that much more ‘organic’. I put that in quotes because it may not actually be organic in appearance, and what we see may simply be the way the human brain organizes the visual data it’s given within the system, but I digress into some pretty severe psychological arguments that haunt the minds of cybernetics supporters.

    In the end, I’m glad that the world has gotten a graphical update that feels like it fits with the look of modern video games, but I agree that we don’t need to see everything about the world and that some things don’t make since in a digital realm. I’m particularly curious about those jets DAve-C27 mentioned, since physics could work however they want it to on the Grid, so why make it rely on limited fuel sources?

  11. Tiki Snakes says:

    Do not confuse Nostalgia for Objective thinking.

  12. Consumatopia says:

    The problem isn’t that they updated the look to match modern video games–the old movies look was inspired by old video games, so that makes sense.

    The problem is that the whole premise of the old movie is tied to the abstract quality of old video games. Tron is like Toy Story for video games. A child playing with a doll has to use their imagination–to pretend that the doll is actually a real creature. Toy Story brings those imaginary people to life–it lets the dolls move around like people.

    Older video games also required you to use your imagination. They used abstract shapes and symbols–even just text–to represent objects in a fantasy world. And technology was so limited that you had to use your imagination A LOT–a few pixels could be a person, an alien, a robot, a airplane, a car, a bike.

    Newer video games don’t require imagination–everything suddenly looks more real than the real world. You no longer need a movie to see what your video game “really” looks like–the video game itself looks real. If toys really did walk around and talk to you, Toy Story would make no sense. And today, when video games really do create a 3-dimensional, physically accurate world, Tron makes no sense.

  13. Raabscuttle says:

    I am afraid that I have to agree with much of the band wagon here. The Tron set would have evolved from 1982 to 2010 – as computers have evolved. The set designers were going after that look to show the evolution in computer technology – while paying homage to “Flynn’s” world of 1982. If you look at the 1982 movie, it did show what was prominent at the time – just as todays movie will. However, that being said, could anyone see some kind of minimist type movie (set in a single room aka 12 Angry Men) not only getting a green light – but somehow becomming a success in todays movie business?

    end of line.

  14. Ricky says:

    I disagree that a more minimal approach would work. You’re right in saying that audiences are accustomed to a certain kind of thing, because that’s also part of the rules. Movies are not made in a vacuum and there are cultural expectations to consider.
    At the same time, i found the visuals of Tron: Legacy to be very cool but unimpressive. Nothing in the new movie comes close to being as iconic as the original, in fact the best design in the movie is stuff that mimics the original. It’s a testament to the work of Mead, Lloyd, and Moebius, but the movie has much bigger problems than weak design.

  15. Cormopolis says:

    If you arent looking for a vivid visual experience then read a book. This nostalgic bullshit is silly. Cinema is a visual experiencw and benefits from its ability to emulate real life. The fact that we can do better at emulating reality shud be celebrated.

  16. Chris Sobieniak says:

    I second Gabe’s concerns over where we are as cinema-goers and in how minimalism in design and concept is often overlooked for the visual eye candies we have today. What got me going with Tron back then was the imagination employed and how they tried to work around the limitations imposed by those techniques that were available to us then. With the unlimited capabilities we see in current films, it sorta took the quesswork away and I don’t feel quite as interesting in seeing anything much anymore since it just seems like it has nowhere to go.

    “This nostalgic bullshit is silly.”

    Go back to your room, little man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *